Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network. The two networks you love and now we end the trilogy with, The Disney Channel Iceberg.  In case you don't know me and you're questioning why a funny bird is talking on screen, let me explain. And Iceberg is a list that talks about theories, fun facts, or anything related to the subject. And it goes from most known to least known. And this is The Disney Channel Iceberg. But you already knew that, you clicked on the video. Growing up, you might have watched Core in the House, A Dog with a Blog, Gravity Falls, or even the most recent Big City Greens. But that doesn't matter, because we're all on the same boat listening to annoying birds spew his verbal garbage from his beak. Yes, yes, yes, I know. When it comes to icebergs, I know a lot of people have a lot to do, so this is more heavy on audio than visual. So while listening to this iceberg, I recommend you do anything that's productive. If your room is dirty, clean it. If you're an artist, keep drawing or start something new. Go for a walk, do something, just do something while listening to this. And hey, if it's late, you can fall asleep to my crisp audio. Is it pretentious to say that? Yeah, but who really cares? Before this video starts though, please comment down below what's your favorite Disney Channel show. I'm actually interested because, you know, there's so many different generations of Disney, so let's see the age range around here. Also, we're getting close to 40k subscribers, so don't forget to subscribe and like this video. It helps me a lot and also helps this video perform well. But if you're not convinced, you could wait until the end of the video and make your mind up then. My channel also has other iceberg videos if you want to continue watching more or just watch some before this one. Look, you just go through my channel and find them. Also, I have other projects that are not just icebergs, so give those a watch too, if you want to see moi. Alright, before we delve more into this iceberg though, there's one more thing. I'm sorry, you already know how it is. This video is sponsored by Wondershare Democreator. You want to make creations like these? Well, you can. You see, Democreator is an easy to use software for screen recording and video editing. You can use the recording software to record your MW2 clips so the world could see how good you are. Look, I know Adobe and other softwares can be complicated, so Democreator makes it easy. Because like Chef Gusto said in Ratatouille, you have the tools to help you create content like text and annotations. You also have animation effects like explosions or advertisement features, so you too could shell out. Also, you have these cute little stickers and sound effects that can accommodate you. And if you want any more of the stickers and stuff, you could look at the effects store.  And all you have to do is just drag and drop these effects, like blur, zoom, or even the green screen for example. You also have sick transitions that could be dragged and dropped. And like any other video software in the world, you could speed up or slow down footage and also change the blending mode of layers. It's simple and new user friendly, so if you too want to make videos that much stress, please give Democreator a try. Trust me, we all get bored and we don't have that much money, so please, I recommend you do give it a try. I'll leave a link down in the description below, so go check it out. Once again, thank you Democreator for sponsoring this video, and now let's return back to the iceberg. Spot the Diff Spot the Diff or Change in Nader Nader is the name given to a two hour special of Phineas and Ferb in a mini marathon. The marathon is based around a scenario in which Dr. Doofenshmirtz has made an invention that he calls the Change in Nader Nader, with which he can make various changes, particularly visual ones to certain episodes of the show. The changes are shown through specially made promotional spots airing between each episode, with redubbed animation from The Fast and the Phineas. As a challenge, the viewer watches the four selected episodes in their modified counterparts while keeping track of which changes are made as part of a tie-in to the official websites. To be honest with you, I know about this but I know too much about it. See as a kid I only watched Phineas and Ferb and turned my brain off half the time. I wonder if they ever found where Perry was though. Pixel Perfect So Pixel Perfect is a Disney Channel movie from 2004. It aired on the United States on January 16th, 2004 and the United Kingdom on January 1st, 2004. I was born in 2002, so I definitely did not watch this. And if you old dinosaur bones in the comments, if you watched Pixel Perfect tell me more about it, but I'm assuming it's on this iceberg because nobody knows about it. Most demographic probably watching this video is young, and there's different scales of young, like 2002 young to like 2005 young maybe. Only thing I was watching was probably Nemo and Pixar movies. I wasn't that focused on the Disney Channel yet. Going Wild with Jeff Corwin So this is a nature documentary television series produced and aired in the late 1990s on Disney Channel, hosted by Jeff Corwin. The show lasted for three seasons from August 10th, 1997 to June 13th, 1999 before it was cancelled. Corwin travels to natural places around the world, including Florida, South Africa, and Hawaii, searching for wild animals. In each episode, Jeff searches for a feature creature and always finds it by the end of the episode. The creatures that were previously featured include the manatee, cobras, crocodiles, bighorn sheep, and dolphins. As he explores, Jeff looks for the creature clues to help him find these animals. And then in some episodes, Jeff even includes ancient ruins. That's pretty interesting. Like once again, like I said, I'm from 2002, so of course I didn't watch this, but researching it is like fun. I mean, when it comes to nature, guys, I just know about Steve Irwin, which, uh, rest in peace, but yeah. Susie Q Susie Q was a 1996 super RTL movie that originally aired on that channel, followed by Disney Channel airing it in the United States in the mid-1990s. Justin Whalen, Emmy Jo Johnson, and Shelly Long starred in the movie. The movie told the story of a teenager dying with her boyfriend on the way to a winter formal back in the mid-1950s, and coming back to her old house about 40 years later in order to help her parents avoid being kicked out of their trailer park home. Disney Channel stopped showing the movie later in the millennium. It was given a TVG rating, and it was already cut for some profanity, but not all. That's it though. Dude, I don't even know what super RTL is. Did most people even watch cable? If you watch cable, tell me down below. If you know about this movie, once again, tell me down below. Close Encounters I try to look more about Close Encounters, but I don't know what it's speaking about. There's multiple episodes on Disney Channel called Close Encounters from different TV shows, but that's pretty much it. But with that, I'll end Lair One. That was pretty quick, but like I said, there's way more to come ahead, so stick around. We're gonna get into Lair Two now. Lair Two Jesse Gluten Joke So this episode had a lot of controversy with it. Some parents were mad about the derogatory statements about children who need gluten-free diets that were made on the show Jesse, which led the company to pull this episode off the air. Here is their statement. To our viewers, we received your feedback about tonight's Jesse episode, which some of you access early on video on demand.  Geez. Disney said in its statement on its official website, we are removing this particular episode from our regular programming schedule, and we will reevaluate its references to its gluten restrictions and its character's diet. Please accept our apologies for the upset this episode caused during your family. We value your feedback. Thank you for watching Disney Channel. Now please, don't pull out of our stocks. We want money. So yeah, the Jesse episode is called Quitting Cold Koala. It revolved around Jesse having to take care of a kid named Stuart. And Stuart has a gluten-free diet. Several jokes are made in the episode about his condition, including the main character Jesse pointing at Stuart, who had a five-page list of dietary requirements and got mad at him. Also, another character says, you call me sweetie again. You'll be eating some gluten-free knuckles. Also, another gag had a child throwing pancakes at Stuart as he screams gluten and wipes his face. And then Luke says, he makes me look macho. Once again, rip, came in boys. So yeah, a lot of this later is going to have the sensitive society type stuff on here. All I'm saying, it's a gluten joke. It's a kid's show. Nobody even knew about what the hell they were watching.   It's not that deep.  Let's be real.  But yeah, shake it up eating disorder.  So shaking up had a eating disorder joke and then Demi Lovato ended up getting mad and tweeted about it. So Demi Lovato also got mad about the so random, which was also tied with sending with a chance and how they made anorexia jokes that she was dealing with, you know, eating disorders at the time. I don't know too much about this. This is pretty easy to look up. She just got mad and made tweets about it. They apologized. That's pretty much it. But this also has to go into something else called Hannah Montana, No Sugar Sugar, which I'll talk about now. So No Sugar Sugar was supposed to air on November 2, 2008 and be the finale of season two. But the episode is pulled due to complaints from the parents that belong to the nonprofit Children with Diabetes, organization after watching a sneak peek at the episode on Disney Channel on demand. Now we just have Disney Plus. Parents of the organization saw the episode being in poor taste and being completely misinformed of its main topic. It did air on Disney Channel networks, though internationally, however, except for the United States. The episode was then reevaluated and modified and then released on September 20, 2009 in the United States. According to Mitchell Mousseau, the episode was also edited and some scenes were re-shot. And the episode was then changed to Uptight Oliver's All Right. Even though the original take was pulled, the original episode aired during a rerun once on December 12, 2016 at 6pm Eastern. Most likely as a programming error. But that's it for Lair 2. Now I'm going to go to Lair 3 and we're going to talk about this. Toon News. In 2004 to 2005, for the UK, Europe, Middle East, and Africa, Disney created a CGI series of promotional international shorts called Toon News that would be aired on Toon Disney. It starred a cowboy robot newsreader called Smokey Silvers who wears boxer shorts and cowboy boots. He'd be in a blimp that was above the skies of Toontown giving news to the audience following the shorts. It was comical and short. It was supposed to be a comedy. They put in clips of airing Toon Disney shows and tried to make some kind of news stories out of it, such as with like Hercules and people. Also some way through the series, Smokey's nephew Spike would come to join him.  It was nominated for a BAFTA and helped Kathy McDonald win both the Best Newcomer Award at the Pro Max Europe 2005 and Young Creative and Europe Award at Pro Max Athens. She intentionally researched for it, becoming the director, going to write and direct all 26 episodes. She also co-created the two characters, to which she created Spike and developed the character of Smokey. Animators who worked on it, including Johnny Grew, Nathan Lodd, and Han Park. Mark Harrison was the producer and Stuart Pearson was the executive producer. Smokey's also voiced by Lou and Mack Lodd. Footage from the series still exists online, but it's scarce and in no way it's completing all 26 5 minute episodes. Some things are re-uploaded, but that's pretty much it. Masterpiece. Masterpiece Theater is an American television show that ran on the Disney Channel and also premiered on other channels launched in 1983. Oh my god, that's old. The show is a spoof on the PBS show, Masterpiece Theater, presenting Disney animated shorts. Get it? Masterpiece? Masterpiece? Yeah. Yeah, you get it. On to the next one. Disney Interactive Studios. On June 5th, 2008, Disney Interactive Studios and the Walt Disney Internet Group merged into a single business unit, now known as Disney Interactive Media Group, in 2009. In 2009, DIMGS, Disney's online unit, purchased multiple websites from Caboose. In July 2010, Disney Interactive purchased Playdome for $563.2 million for its mobile division. In January 2011, DIMG closed its propaganda game studio and laid off about 200 employees later that month. The dual presidents placed a new game on the backrock, Junction Point, Avalanche, Wild Loading Game Star, under its new development of chief, with a new publishing unit to handle marketing and production. Yeah, that's, I guess, interesting to people who think it's interesting. I was just laying it there. That's what I found. Stanley. Stanley was an animated television series that was aimed to preschoolers that aired on Playhouse Disney from 2001 to 2007. This isn't my age demographic, but still too young. The series was created by Jim Jenkins, creator of Doug and PBJ Otter. Ooh, I talked about Doug, by the way, on a different iceberg, the Nickelodeon one. You probably saw that one. If not, here's a little, to the right of the screen, you could find a click for it. But it was also created by David Campbell. Stanley discusses a wide variety of issues that preschooler children face, including change growth rules and dealing with it. That's cap. I'm sorry. No preschooler cares about anything.   Yeah, that's what preschoolers do.  But each episode centers on an animal that deals with or helps explain the issues that Stanley's dealing with. In 1999, a pilot of the episode was sent to Disney to see if it would make a full-fledged series, but it never aired due to Stanley's design being a bit too scary for young audiences. The pilot was called Kingaroo Cleanup, what with different scenes. Most of it was reused in an episode later in the series, called Stanley's Parents Room, but it just looks completely different, having a purple setting. And Harry looks completely different as well. Stanley's voice actor Jessica D Stone also voiced him in the pilot episode. His mom and dad were voiced by David Landsberg and Erie Myers. Respectfully, while Dennis and Harry's voice actors are currently unknown at this time. That's it for Layer 4 though. We're going to be moving on to Layer 5. Thanks for still sticking with me. That's pretty sick. See you there. Fall Apart Bomb Squad Fall Apart Bomb Squad is the 17th episode of Bonkers, although it's actually the 9th in chronological order. So a crazy-tuned bomb who wants to be a stand-up comic terrorizes the city. And Bonkers has to take the case with their new explosive expert, Fall Apart Rabbit. The episode was removed from rotation in the United States after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing due to its bombing-slash-terrorism plot, and was consequently never-re-ran-on-tuned Disney. This was before Disney even became more strict with, you know, 9-11 happening. It is though available to watch on Disney Plus in the US. That's okay. I think there's a couple more in this iceberg that have to do with terrorism. That's pretty funny though. Has to do with, you know, bomb defusal. Of course in 2016 I played a lot of CSGO, so nothing changed.  Just kidding. I don't want to be on Disney's bad side. Mini Takes Care of Pluto So Mini Takes Care of Pluto is a Minnie Mouse cartoon short from Mickey Mouse Works, despite this short being labeled as Minnie Mouse Short. It focused on Pluto instead of Minnie. So the short was pulled from ABC to never be shown again in the US due to complaints about it being short and frightening. Can however still be seen outside of the US. So this short in Pluto Gets Paper are the only ones who are not shown on Mouse Work Shorts. So yeah, this short is not shown to people, but I'll read some of the complaints that people said. So there's a complaint about an image that has poison berry jelly that's put in Pluto's pole. And Minnie laughs evilly as Pluto remains to eat the bowl. A second image spots where Minnie buries Pluto alive. A third image spots Minnie trying to kill Pluto at the Mace.  Okay, that makes sense why it's not being shown to little kids, but okay, I'll move on. Flying Dupes So Flying Dupes is a 65th and final episode of the Disney animated series Tailspin that premiered on August 8th, 1991. Geez, dude. So many old things. If you watched Tailspin, let me know below. This episode was only shown once before it was banned from the lineup, most likely due to its most likely due to its terrorist themes. Once again, Disney. What with the terrorism? The only other time it was aired was in 1999 on Toon Disney, which was most likely a mistake. It's also not included in iTunes or Disney Plus, despite having been released on DVD in 2013. The episode also includes a cameo of Nana from Peter Pan. If that makes you feel nice. Like I said, guys, I told you, I think the next one has to do with terrorism as well. Geez, Disney. In the 90s, you guys were going buck wild, huh? New Partners on the Block So New Partners on the Block is the 32nd episode of Bonkers. It's notably the last of the Lucky Pickle episodes in production order. And such is the last episode with Lucky as Bonkers' partner, with Miranda Wright becoming Bonkers' new partner at the end of the episode, bridging the gap between the two different sets of Bonker episodes. This episode was removed from the rotation in the United States after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing incident, you know, due to the terrorism plot. Once again, like we said, but you could still find it on Disney Plus. All right. With that, I'm going to go to layer six. Thanks for sticking with layer five. Happy to have you here, but we're going to be moving on now. So let's go. Kim Possible Ringtone. I don't know what this has to do. This might have to do with it. It's just the Kim Possible Ringtone. I think it was available for times on people's phones back then. If you had the Kim Possible Ringtone, tell me about it. Cory is the best anime.  I don't know why this is on here. It's kind of funny though. All the way at layer six, but yeah. Tell me if you think Cory is the best anime, tell me in the comments. Go down there right now and tell me if you think it is or not, but I'll move on. The Disney Channel Circle of Stars. So the Disney Channel Circle of Stars is a Disney Channel super group comprised of various actors and actresses from a variety of Disney Channel original shows and movies. The purpose of the group is to perform modern renditions of classic Disney songs to attract a young audience. And it's also to advertise special releases of Disney films, specifically The Lion King's Circle of Life in 2003. And Cinderella's A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes in 2005. They returned with a new team in 2014 for Do You Want to Build a Snowman? Do you guys want to build a snowman? Disney's Friends for Change, also referred to as Friends for Change Project Green, is a pro-social green initiative that started in the summer of 2009. Disney's Star Stress Environmental Issues is in the campaign. The year-long campaign draws on how Disney stars connect with young fans. Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers and also Demi Lovato are stars amongst this. This also might be crazy to say really quick though, but there's some people who do not know these people were Disney stars. There's young people who think Selena Gomez was just a singer out the bat, same with Miley Cyrus. No, these people were on Disney. So to all the young Fortnite playing people, I cannot believe I just said that, but yeah, this is real. But what they would do is provide two-minute public service announcements, you know, currently airing on Disney Channel. They'll tell them to preserve the planet and to go to the Friends for Change website to register and pledge in which sometimes they, you know, would. As a part of the initiative, kids would also have the ability to choose how Disney will invest one million in their environmental programs.    Hannah Montana alternate ending. So included in the Hannah Montana forever final season DVD, there was an alternate ending to the episode. The alternate ending picks up from the airport scene where Miley and Lily say that goodbyes as Lily goes to Stanford and Miley goes to Paris to work with Spielberg and Cruz. The camera then pans away from Miley and Lily hugging and zooms until a little girl sitting in a chair holding a Hannah Montana doll. The text Tennessee 12 years ago appears that shows the young girl portraying young Miley Cyrus playing with a Barbie doll, singing a song about herself becoming a famous rock star. Miley's real life parents, Billy Ray Cyrus and Tish Cyrus walk into the room, tell her that it's past her bedtime and tuck her in. Miley then says, I'm going to be a rock star one day just like daddy. Then Tish tells her that as long as she keeps believing in herself, she could do anything she wants to. And Billy Ray tells Miley that someday her dream will come true. The scene eventually shifts into a photograph of the real life Miley and her parents, suggesting that like Miley Stewart, Miley Cyrus imagined herself being famous one day and her dream indeed came true. That's kind of cool. So just connect to the two universes. They never used it, but that was awesome. But Miley Cyrus, you did become popular making songs with Kid LaRoy and swinging from wrecking balls. You know, round of applause. Zoog. So Zoog Disney was introduced in August 1998 and was the most distinct of the three blocks, compromising Disney Channel's original series aimed at pre-teens and teens. So it was hosted by an alien slash robot hybrid characters called Zoogs. They were figures that were given mature voices in 2001 and was designed to help encourage viewers' interactivity between television and the Internet. The Zoog Disney brand will then later be expanded, with most of the channel's weekly schedules outside of the Vault Disney and Playhouse Disney becoming a part of Zoogs Weekend's umbrella block from September 2001 to August 2002. In early September of the year, Disney Channel would then begin gradually rebranding, beginning with killing the Zoog brand from air use.  But you know, it does come back. After relaunching Vault Disney 2014, the question was asked if Zoog Disney would be a part of the Vault Disney or just be a separate channel. It was decided that Zoog Disney was going to be a separate sub-channel, sharing some of the programming from Vault Disney. So on January 1st, 2015, Zoog Disney returned as a sub-channel and is now one of the candidates for DN's children block.  Like I said, 1900. It's not a part of my era. That's crazy for me. Arwen. Hey, you guys remember Arwen from Sweet Life with Zach and Cody? So Arwen was a project by Danny Callis, produced to be a spin-off of the Sweet Life with Zach and Cody. The project wasn't picked up of course though, because you know, nobody's talking about it. There's no nostalgia of Arwen. So of course the series wasn't picked up by Disney Channel. Although other series spin-offs were picked up. But rather than focusing on Arwen, the Sweet Life on Deck featured adventures of Zach and Cody, London and Mosby on the SS Tipton, as well as the teen studies at Seven Seas High. Additionally, the new series added the characters of Bailey Pickett, who was played by, you know, Debbie Ryan, who replaced Maddie Fitzpatrick as a series regular. That's weird to think that Arwen is going to get his own show, but then, you know, good thing, I liked Sweet Life on Deck more. That's kind of weird though. I actually have more nostalgia of Sweet Life on Deck than Sweet Life with Zach and Cody. I was younger during Sweet Life with Zach and Cody, but I actually did watch Sweet Life on Deck. What's Stevie thinking? So this was a spin-off to Lizzie McGuire. The show centered around Miranda Sanchez and her sister and parents, and her best friends trying to help support wildlife conservation camps at Australia. The show centered around Miranda Sanchez and her sister and parents, and her best friends as they try to help support wildlife conservation, and help at Australia Zoo with Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin and his friends and family. Like I said, Steve Irwin. Yes, we talked about him earlier. Once again, ripped to the guy, but, aw, that's a cute episode. That's a cute show. I do miss Steve Irwin a lot, but no, respect the staying race still. The 65th episode rule. So the 65th episode rule was a controversial rule that applied to Disney television shows, particularly during the late 1990s and early 2000s, stating that no show could go beyond 65 episodes, which is two or three seasons. This rule angered many Disney Channel fans due to the fact that so many shows had to get canceled while they still had huge fan bases, such as Lizzie McGuire and even Stevens. After initially ending after 65 episodes on February 22, 2005, Kim Possible was renewed for a fourth season on November 29, 2005, making the show the last subject to this rule. No other show in the network has been canceled due to this rule since.  Nickelodeon had a lot of rules like this too on that iceberg that I covered, but good thing they removed that. That's so dumb. As of 2018, Marvel's Avengers Assemble officially broke the 105 episodes rule, with its fifth season's Marvel's Avengers Black Panther's Quest, which premiered on September 23, 2018. As of 2015, the combined run of Sweet Life of Zack and Cody is the longest running show, at 158 episodes and a movie. Although Gargoyles is listed as an exception to this rule, it should be noted that the show's last 12 episodes aired as a part of the show's third season, subtitled The Goliath Chronicles, and are not considered to be made by the creator Greg Wiseman. It adapted the first two issues of 2006, and the canon rule was also kind of not applied. The TV show is actually 66 episodes long, just narrowly making the exception to this. Recess could also technically be considered, you know, an exemption to the rule, as ABC wanted an order for more episodes from 2002 to 2003. However, Disney declined on making another full season worth of episodes. Only four new episodes of Recess were made, bringing the full count up to 69. 69, that's a funny number. But they were never actually aired as episodes of the show. Instead, three of them were made together as Recess taking the fifth grade, while the last one was released as a Recess, all grown up. The rule officially ended in August 2004, when Disney Channel ordered 13 additional episodes of That's So Raven, after the show had filmed its 65th episode. Kim Possible originally ended after 65 episodes, with the movie So The Drama, intended to serve as the show's last three episodes. But due to popularity, the show was picked up for a fourth season, like I said earlier. This is considered the turning point for the rule. And since then, the only Disney show that ended at exactly 65 episodes was Ant Farm, in the March of 2014. Damn, I remember Ant Farm. That's cool. The reason they did this though is for economic reasons apparently. They did the whole math about why 65 episodes is enough for airtime, but I don't know. That is very limiting to directors and also people who enjoyed it. Perry X Doof. I really, really do not want to talk about this. So there's a thing of fan base with, how do you even speak about this? So people shipped Perry the Platypus and Doofenshmirts. It's a literal platypus and Doofenshmirts. The people wanted them to have a relationship. You probably, I'll show this one, but it's the funny image where like he's pregnant. This is ridiculous though. It's a platypus and a man. Like you guys got to calm down. Dreamfinders. So Dreamfinders was an unmade television show proposed for the original Disney Channel lineup, based on the journey into imagination attraction. It featured Dreamfinder here known as Old Eli, taking children on adventures through the realms of imagination, while avoiding a villain named Fear in his dark realm of the bill wilderness. That's super original, right? Yeah, only three scripts were completed on the D23 website, and the series never officially filmed. According to screenwriter Doug Williams, who wrote the first episode titled Just in Time, just as the show was building ahead of Steam, Michael Eisner took over of Disney Studios and shut down the production, for no apparent reason. Other than that, it's a common practice that, with change of powers, you close things. Look at Star Wars, for example, rip 1313. Xenon. Girl of the 21st century. So Xenon Girl of the 21st century is a 1999 Disney original movie, starring Kristen Storms. The film was originally conceived as a pilot for a potential television series, but the series never got off the ground. Nevertheless, the movie proved popular and warranted two sequels, Xenon the sequel in 2001 and Xenon Z3 in 2004. I'm guessing this is on here because most people don't know about this, at least millennials do not know about this stuff, so that's interesting. Disney's Coyote Tales So Disney's Coyote Tales is a television special that aired on Disney Channel on March 24th, 1991. Through redubbed footage of the coyotes' laminate, the coyotes' relationships with a man and dog is shown from the coyotes' point of view. That's it, though. I guess coyotes' tales. So that was a long lair, but thanks for sticking around. We're going to go to lair 7 now, and we're getting to the end of this. So thanks for being here. I'll see you there. White Rabbits Can't Jump So White Rabbits Can't Jump is the unaired 99th episode of A Ventress in Wonderland. But the episode was pulled from release after O.J. Simpson was arrested in 1994. Though the episode was never aired, it was adapted into a picture book. The White Rabbit gets some help from his hero O.J. Simpson prior to his 1994 criminal trial, when the residents of Wonderland hold an annual athletics competition, and he's afraid he will lose. That's crazy. As you guys all know, the juice is on the loose. But back then he used to inspire tons of children.  But who knows, you know, juice. Juice is on the loose. Deadly Force So Deadly Force is the 8th televised episode of Gargoyles and the 8th episode of Season 1 that is arguably the most controversial of the episodes. So in the episode, Broadway accidentally shoots Alyssa with her gun. And wrapped with guilt, he takes her to the hospital, then goes off on his own to take his frustration down on criminals. They assume it was the work of a gangster Alyssa was investigating, and set to take him down permanently. Those initially pulled from rotation due to sensitive subject matter of gun safety, which was the theme for the episode. It was later allowed to be re-aired, but with censorship edits made. Which had digital removing of Alyssa's blood when she was shot. That's pretty crazy. You got people, you know, busting caps at each other in Disney. That's never gonna happen again. Hot Spells Hot Spells is the 86th episode of Darkwing Duck. And it was first aired on Halloween Day of 1992, and was quickly pulled from general circulation due to it having satanic themes. This is the only episode omitted from any show, you know, in its US digital release despite being available for purchase in Germany. This was one of the four Darkwing Duck episodes that was banned after its initial airings. The other three being Tiff the Titans, Beersen Thug, and a Duckphobia. However, unlike the other three banned episodes, Hot Spells has never been on release on VHS or DVD, and is only unavailable for digital purchases on iTunes and Disney Plus. Last Horizons Last Horizons is a 32nd episode of the Disney Afternoon animated series Tailspin. The episode was banned for reruns due to its saturation of World War II, and stereotyping of Asians. It occasionally rerun on Toon Disney, but you know, the last time being seen December 2002, it is not available. So the episode saturates Asians, specifically Japanese people, as to do with the Emperor wanting to bomb somewhere, which is like referencing Pearl Harbor. Yeah, Disney wanted to be a little bit brand friendly, you know, moving forward, so it makes sense why they did this. But that's the end of Lair 7. We're gonna be going on to Lair 8 now, so once again, like I said, stick around, keep watching. If you're already asleep, then here's my voice. You're gonna keep hearing it, so thanks. Tim Burton's Hansel and Gretel So filmed for 116,000 on 16mm film, this live-action short film featured a cast of East Asian American amateur actors. Also, kung fu fights and Japanese toys, as Burton was obsessed with Japanese culture at the time of the production. The film's design and style paid a homage to Godzilla movies and featured heavy special effects, such as front projection and forced perspective, even some stop-motion animation. Though some people claim that the full film's run was 45 minutes, the version released on YouTube in 34 minutes and 17 seconds, with the credits cut off. This is due to the film being paired with Tim Burton's Vincent short film and various bumpers. This is actually really interesting though, because, you know, Hansel and Gretel usually has to do with, like, forest taking place in, like, old Europe or something, but taking it to, like, a Godzilla theme, that's super creative. Dreams and the Attic A New York Times article states that the special was screened in a museum of modern arts as part of Tim Burton's special exhibition. If you know anything more about Dreams and the Attic referring to Disney Channel, please tell me down below in the comments. Don't Look Under the Bed So Don't Look Under the Bed is a 1999 Disney Channel original movie. It is also Disney Channel's second and final attempt at horror. The first being Tower of Terror, which, you know, is also an attraction at Disneyland, and was the first DCOM to be rated TV PG due to its frightening content. Though the film was well-liked by fans and critics, it allegedly received some complaints by parents who felt that it was too scary and dark for young kids. Disney apparently had similar problems when producing the film, with dark themes in 1980s, especially the 1983 film Something Wicked This Way Comes. Once Disney made the switch, these movies then became a little bit gradual, such as Tower of Terror. That's it about Don't Look Under the Bed, and that's all, that's it about this layer. We're going to layer 9 now, so close to the end, or I might have got the numbers off, I don't know, I'm just going through this, we'll see. Ooh, okay, so a lot about this layer has to do with the cancellation of some Disney people, and I'll get into that to now. So this has to do with Vanessa Hudgens. In 2007, 18-year-old Hudgens' privacy was compromised after a nude photo had surfaced online about a year after High School Musical was released. At the time, the Disney actress issued a statement apologizing to fans and expressing regret for taking the photos. In an interview with Cosmopolitan UK that was published, Hudgens said that it was a traumatizing time for her. This is her statement. It was a really traumatizing thing for me. It's really scary that people feel like they're entitled enough to share something that's personal with the world. Hudgens noted how fans can feel entitled to celebrities' privacy.  It feels like that shouldn't be the case, but unfortunately, if enough people are interested, they're going to do everything they can to know as much about you as they can, which is flattering, I guess, but then people take it too far and end up getting too personal.  Devin Leos. So, this was the guy from, you know, Mighty Med, but after Mighty Med ended, he found himself having run-ins with a law. Most recently, an ordeal that landed him three months in jail in 2019. However, the formerly child actor seems to be getting back on the right path, using his newfound success to give back to homeless communities, to, you know, right his past wrongs. But Brown was best known for his role as Eddie Thomas on the hit Disney Channel, like I said, you know, Mighty Med. And he was actually arrested for marijuana possession. He made headlines again in 2016, when he was charged for battery and meth possession. And that was the first time that, you know, he very publicly battled the drugs and mental health for the former actor. I don't know, there's debates to be had about that. I might be kind of stupid, but that's what it says in this iceberg. Miley Cyrus' scandals. The then 15-year-old Disney star came under fire in 2008 for posing for a cover of Vanity Fair, wearing nothing but a satin sheet. While she apologized at the time, she changed her tune, you know, 10 years later.  She tweeted alongside a 2008 issue The New York Post, which ran, you know, the photo. I agree with her on that, though. Back then, child stars were forced to apologize for anything, but it is, you know, freedom of expression. Good for her. Miley Cyrus' bong video. Before Hannah Montana rapped, there's a video of her smoking weed from a bong in 2010. I'm not perfect. That's what she said about the scandal. She said she made a mistake and I'm disappointed in myself and my fans. Then she claimed about being, you know, Nikon and stuff. Mitchell Musso's DUI. The former Hannah Montana star was arrested and charged with two counts of drunk driving in October 2011. Musso struck a plea deal on February 2012, agreeing to 36 months in, you know, probation. Also, you know, alcohol education classes and a fine of $1,000. Shy LaBeouf. Bizarre behavior. Aw, Shy LaBeouf is on here. I don't think it's talking about his recent stuff, though, with, like, battery. I think this is, like, the things you could find in Honey Boy. So he was made headlines in 2014 after he arrived at the Canes Film Festival wearing a bag on his head that said, I'm not famous anymore. LaBeouf gave a series of cryptic and bizarre interviews that following month. But with the bag, you know, me and people were, like, pulling fingernails and stuff, he made multiple statements about that. But that's it for Shy LaBeouf on here, at least. But there's so much more about it, but I guess you could find different things about that.  Debbie Ryan's DUI. So she was booked for driving under the influence in June 2016. After playing no contest to the charge of reckless driving, Ryan was placed on three years probation and to complete a DUI program in community service. That's crazy. Now she's with the drummer from 21 Pilots. Good for you, Debbie. That was it for Lair 9, guys. We're going to Lair 10. Damn, this has been a long iceberg. Hope you're still here. Jeffrey Jones. Actor Jeffrey Jones playing the prominent starring role of Chairman Clench was a major coup from Disney and Lucas. The acclaimed thespian and his classic deadpan delivery earned praise in films throughout the 1980s and 90s. However, in 2003, Jones was arrested on some very disturbing allegations regarding minors. Yep, here's, this is this Lair folks. You're down in the iceberg. Pedophilia is coming. After pleading no contest, Jones was placed on probation for five years and required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Subsequently, he was arrested twice for not updating his sex offender registration as required. It did not go unnoticed that shortly after his 2003 arrest, Disney closed up his, you know, alien encounter show. Disney closed the extraterrestrial alien encounter. Brian Peck. On this iceberg, it says Brain Peck. That's pretty funny. But he was an actor who was 54 and was in two X-Men movies and all three living dead movies.  Brian Peck served 16 months in prison after admitting two counts of abusing a Nickelodeon child actor. Damn. See Nickelodeon still manages to find a way to be in this iceberg. He was charged with eight counts of sexual abuse, including abuse by anesthesia or controlled substance. Since release from prison, he has been a dialogue coach. He worked on a Disney series as well and claimed to be friends with Charlie Sheen. Only banned for direct contact with children, so he's still able to work on series but just not with underage actors. That's pretty scummy. But I guess that's how they get away with it, right? Victor Salva. So Victor Salva, a former childcare worker who impressed Hollywood filmmakers with his early cinematic work, for example, he made the Jeepers Creepers movie, if you remember that, was sentenced to three years in state prison in 1988 for molesting a 12-year-old boy who had acted in two of his films.  Stoney Westmoreland. Westmoreland was fired from his grandfather role on the made in Utah Disney Channel series, Andy Mack. After his arrest last December, his film credits include Godzilla and Matchstick Men. He has pleaded no guilty to the charge. Louis City had spoken with his agent who acknowledged that he would normally drop a client phasing such allegations but hoped to work with him in the future. Planned, she said, to point her client's good reputation.  Yeah, that's it though. Peddow would. With that, we're gonna go to layer 11 and this is just really short. Lee Lone Stitch slash Handy Manny. Signal intrusion. So in 2007, someone hijacked Playhouse Disney and interrupted Handy and interrupted Handy Manny with porn. This happened again on Dish Network in 2012 on the Disney Channel in North Carolina which had Lee Lone Stitch which was supposed to play but instead porn was played. Jesus Christ, people are going crazy with that. So that's the end of the iceberg. I want to take a second to say thanks. When I first made the Nickelodeon Iceberg I was around a thousand subscribers and now I'm at 36,000 cents. The growth has been crazy and I'm super grateful. So much could happen in such a short amount of time. So who knows where we will be at by the end of the year but this is all because of you. I just want to take a second to just thank everybody who subscribes, comments, and just likes these videos. You're doing so much for me and I'm just super grateful and appreciative. Also thank you to the channel members. You guys are awesome as well. So much could happen and this is just kind of overwhelming but for real thanks. Also thanks for watching to the end of this video. That's awesome as well. If you want to watch any more icebergs I have some on my channel but I also recommend you watch the other projects. Once again, like, share the video, subscribe. Thanks for watching. I'm Dr. Skipper. I'll see you soon. Goodbye.


Okay, so I'm going to be talking about B2, the long name project for which we don't yet have an acronym or colonic name, so read it for yourself, feel free to suggest any cool names, otherwise I'll just start. So I'll go over like I think... I'll go over probably the whole thing, even though a lot of people have heard it already for the new people. Basically what is the motivation behind the project? The motivation is that the blockchains that are used on a reusable resource such as proof-of-stake or proof-of-space, they are less secure than the one that is used on proof-of-work. We know this because this has been discussed a lot in the community. There are some known attacks, for example low-ranked attacks, tech bidding attacks, they have been studied a lot in the proof-of-stake setting and basically what we found when we were doing the analysis of the pi-curring consensus protocol is that actually like you can find like some very similar type of attack on proof-of-stake, maybe sometime to a necessary degree, maybe not, but basically that's the motivation behind the project. Okay, so just to give an illustration I'm going to explain what a long-range attack is on the proof-of-stake system. So proof-of-stake basically the stakeholders are the validators, they are the ones who validate the block. So basically a block is validating as long as let's say for example there's like some threshold of signature on each block. Also what's going to happen usually in a system is that the set of validators is going to change. So for example here we start with like the green validator who have validated like this block and then you know they want to move to other business and we change validator and we end up with the pink validator here. That's like proof-of-stake. Now the problem with proof-of-stake is that what could happen is that basically like these validators who the green who are not part of the system anymore, let's say like you know they don't, because they are not part of the system anymore they don't have any incentive anymore, maybe they have cash out their coins, maybe they don't care and like an adversary would basically be able to bribe them to sell their old keys at no cost because these keys they are not worth anything in the current file. So that's problematic because in the proof-of-stake setting if you have the keys you can rewrite the entire history at no cost and no time. It's not like proof-of-work so that would be a very very unfortunate situation because then the adversary can create a chain that is as least as long as it's longer than the current chain, maybe the adversary will you know simulate some like change of validator, basically it can do anything in terms of protocol and then what happens is that the people who have been offline for a long time they wake up out of the blue they see two chains, they both seem perfectly valid, no way to tell which one is the correct one. And basically as you can see the only difference between these two chains are the set of validators right because the adversary has no way of having the pink keys so here we will have some orange keys that's the only difference Alice doesn't know which one are the legitimate even if she knew that the green one were legitimate here like at some point that she cannot make the difference between valid and not valid. Okay there's also another attacks that's called power dreaming attack and again we have something similar in the proof-of-stake setting and the idea behind the attack is the intuition it's like the adversary can do a private chain so a chain that's mine on its own and because in proof-of-stake like new coins are minted every block basically it means that once the adversary does a parallel chain it can get all the coins to itself so then it's going to inflate its stake in a you know not proportional manner and basically the adversary could use that to also build up a really no chain. Here's the reference for interest this is okay so basically the main approach to solving the issue with proof-of-stake is checkpointing so there are a lot of different papers which are based on different assumptions different models and the one that we are focusing on which actually you are also a co-author is and Marco as well is this one called BMS which basically consists in using a proof-of-work chain in this case ethereum in order to do the checkpointing. Okay so let's me like outline the solution so we rely on a blockchain based on the renewable resource so proof-of-work in order to secure the proof-of-stake chain so what's going to happen is that we are going to anchor the proof-of-stake membership and the proof-of-stake states which are linked into the blockchain and in this case we're going to use the bitcoin blockchain so basically this is roughly how this is going to look from time to time we're going to anchor like the state of the blue chain which is the proof-of-stake slash proof-of-stake into the bitcoin chain which is the orange and the idea is like the bitcoin chain it does not suffer from this type of attack because it's proof-of-work it takes time to create blocks so so then like this is kind of like we're using kind of like the security of the current secure our chain so again just to emphasize but surely you know this like the main difference between this approach and the BMS approach is that we are not relying on ethereum because ethereum is moving to proof-of-stake in which case like there is no point doing this because proof-of-stake is vulnerable to the same type of attack yeah yeah yeah I should be actually quite sure so maybe I won't spend too much time on this on this um and yeah and then in this case the difficulty is that in bitcoin you don't have the same expressivity of ethereum so we can't really do like the approach that we did with that a smart contract where you just like send your boat because bitcoin doesn't really is not stable like you don't have okay so I think like basically the the main question that we're going to have is that we need to have this checkpoints that are pushed to the bitcoin blockchain like who is doing this this transaction and in our case like we want that the current validator of the proof-of-stake do this and obviously we want to account for some adversaries so that's why we use first-hand signature because something you know is like in bitcoin we also have like noticing which actually scale really well but in our in our case that wouldn't really work well because because then an adversary could just like abort the whole thing by just like not contributing to have everyone so that that's one so like basically you know you can't really do k out of n and actually like the problem of doing this k out of n is the like is like you would like how to say the t generation basically that would be the problem you cannot have like one address that could be signed by any k out of n uh subset so you would need to do like one different address for every different k out of n subset which actually like either you could do it but then imagine if you have a lot of miners that would be like super inefficient and otherwise you can you can have like one one address for a character then that's okay so our kind of decision so basically what we will have is that um we will have so at um you know step i of the protocol an aggregate key so that's the key that's correspond to the uh special signature so basically pk i will um be the aggregated totally key of all the validator in configuration i and then um what they are gonna do is like this validator they are the one who's gonna push the checkpoint to decide but right but what we want also is that we want to account for changing validators right so um basically what this uh validator associated with pki are going to do that when they're going to put uh push the checkpoint to be played also they're going to transfer whatever amounts they have in their case to pki plus one which will be the aggregated public key of the next set of validators so you're kind of like transferring ownership of the checkpointing mechanism to the new set of validators um okay so we need the transaction to be signed by access f plus one of the proof of state miners that means sense um here again so yeah so basically here you can see like the the kind of like rolling state so you have configuration i minus one so here you have the kind of that transfer for pki minus one to pki uh then you know here we have configuration hi i they did i think and then when you have a new set of validators like the previous one will again transfer to the next um value um and then the idea is that if we have alice uh if we have like um a long range attack again as i explained in the beginning to change to change they look the same then alice you can look at uh the bitcoin blockchain we assume that she knows pki zeros pki zero and then basically from bitcoin you can just like uh follow the chain of like transactions and basically she will be able to find the last like utx so which will give her like pki's the aggregated public key of the turn validator and the checkpoint and basically using this information she can verify which chain is the correct chain that's that's the high lever right there um yes also so um so something else is that basically if we want as we said like on the bitcoin blockchain we don't want to have too much data we're going to have only a hash because it's too expensive and not efficient to have a lot of data so what we want to do is basically include in the checkpoint that we push onto bitcoin also a cid that any user would be able to use um in order to retrieve the actual identities of the configuration basically so she can actually find who are the miners and not just like validates that they are the miners in case you know she cannot turn that down and you could also attach a method that you do not have to verify on pki zero somehow for example attack always pki zero and everybody would just say that but then how would you find okay so basically what she says that she wants to put pki zero also in the checkpoint yeah okay uh okay just so you don't have to follow the the translation but then how would you verify how long do you know what you're trying to do, how do you know what you're trying to do, what kind of focus is that for any of the people and each one has a different behavior but I quite you know like the algorithm it's something you know before it's like the genesis that's what I mean what about attaching it to the last two days but the things like that anyone can attach it anyone who knows pki zero can attach it to their transaction right so you would need to exactly you would need so you would need to find 45 no I know I just thought maybe you can how to take that that makes sense now yeah so yeah so I was saying initially we're saying oh we can use ipfs uh actually like maybe what we're going to do is like use the kbs that our control is implementing on musical so actually you can just like retrieve the data from the musical chain itself using this idea so that's another approach we yeah so this um yeah maybe we'll do that so hopefully we can retrieve all the data okay so now a high level protocol so basically the protocol will be triggered periodically what we are envisioning at the moment is like let's say that you know we are in a configuration configuration I and then we're going to trigger the protocol after like some threshold of change has happened in the configurator so they say we have you know like 20 new miners that I've turned or left and we're like okay nice thank you that's how we do it so first the first thing that we need to do is compute the aggregated property of the new configuration right ptr plus one because only once we have this then we can compute the transaction that's gonna you know transfer the ownership of the checkpointing from pti to pti plus one and basically I think that this step is kind of like the reason why you cannot sorry because we have new participants now so it's not you're doing better yeah yeah um like if we could I would I would love it but I think it's not possible with okay because I last time I discussed it with Rosario okay okay so then yeah like honestly if we had a way of just updating it that that would like change our like our life a lot because this is like the most annoying annoying part of the protocol so yeah if we could have a way to just like remove the participant that have left and then just like give a share to the new participant that would be great but yeah basically yeah so you would kind of like cheap or maybe a bit of that your chair okay okay and then okay well if we can do it I would be super happy so that let's put it like their share would not work I guess anymore yeah so their share we're not yeah that's what we do yeah the trick is that you need to you need to be sure that your chair for two weeks is or you need to somehow record the transition because otherwise any majority of all chairs they'll be able to sign yeah so basically yeah they know that they may know but even here if you don't delete the Rosario yeah but the thing is like if you do that then the transaction it has to the transaction has been spent on bitcoin yeah because basically that's the thing like indeed like we could if someone was doing was doing the long-range attack you know on this key then it doesn't matter because on the bitcoin option once they have spent you cannot spend anything more right so that's that's the idea but yeah to come back to this day that this is indeed like the biggest the biggest part and biggest problem that we have and also yeah that's why you see that you can we cannot you know do no t-sig or or sing that because basically this like tki plus one it needs to be known in some of the fact well in advance of the same because the like passing happens now so basically at the time where the previous configuration like you know gives the key to the to the new threshold like we don't know yet who's going to be honest who's going to be online who's going to be signing so basically we need to commit to the whole set and then maybe that's only a fraction of this rule will participate but we don't know okay so then okay a special timing we send the transaction to the bitcoin so basically that's kind of like the highest nothing nothing too complex but okay that's kind of like one slide simmering right no for the for the for the it's kind of like everyone is a dealer for their own secrets and actually initially the sign like the first protocol actually you need a dealer but but you can remove this so we have so everyone can shoot their own shares send it and everyone can return to the transaction using the share but the signing on the other hand and that's kind of like a problem it's like it's not like for us to pager so basically if someone does not send their share we need to have a timeout remove them from from the protocol they're assigned their managers or something and redo the protocol without them and because we have sign we can redo the protocol without them so the way first work actually is that everyone at the at the beginning everyone generate their own kind of like content and commit to them and then you would take this basically and depending on this and then depending on the set of sign year you will take their yeah well yeah why why yeah okay so that's that's why I guess because and I guess that's why more efficient than others because you have this kind of like pre-processing where everyone creates the randomness and postage and then you use it for your like thing yeah yeah so I think otherwise like the other alternatives you bought this kind of like robustness that you need to have like there was another protocol that was robust but then let's efficient so we decided to go with frost this is less robust but more efficient okay so now about the internalization so basically we had this thing so that's what was working on this and what they did is like they basically implemented the DKG and the second thing is a library but the problem is like what they have done so far is like not robust to failure so they haven't done the case where as I just say like if someone doesn't participate we just need to redo the sign and without them and also even the DKG they haven't implemented the one that we wanted that is robust um also they only had the assumption as you know for participants if not remove them and other than this uh the take so the take on for a creative and push to the different web tests you can tackle the process well we have a equivalent of 20 nodes but I wanted to show you that as you know sometimes it was not working so well so you can stop it maybe I will you um and basically since they have left me with this I have kind of like started implementing like minor improvements on the code um especially one of the issues that I had with shared codes is that the DKG chip coding is like kind of like don't separate it from musical so I started kind of like implementing like merging the two more like adding some space really into the sequencing in some of the digital actors um if you just also help I've also and basically like doing this helped me with um the functionality of removing a minor so because as I was doing uh you know what I said roughly after uh basically so my next step for now uh mostly I'm going to focus on the implementation and on uh seeing the code because you want us to be seeing and basically uh improving this uh what we want to have also for the next demo which is marked is uh used different test sets instead of this one rest set um you should be a disciplinizer but then basically because like different test sets associated with that kind of test set code it's going to be a bit tricky to especially to um make like the initial spending transaction um maybe we'll need to like maintain space like of course but it's going to be a bit more tricky but we are hoping to have this soon before now also as I said at the moment we are pushing the transaction to like to functionalize like in your starter we want to not do this in uh uh and then I think like the next steps which are not my main focus but uh we want to do and we have started thinking about is this problem of uh state so Marco this morning he started mentioning this problem that um when you know when you do this protocol we need to take into account weights right and by weight I mean in proof of state it will be the number of coins and in proof of state it will be like the amount of storage and basically like at the moment we don't have a way as we were asking we don't have a way to do this special so the only way to do this is like to have one cheaper mistake and then we end up with like a lot of this already we don't have a decision algorithm and we now we need to make it into account this it's very easy um and so basically the problem of that is that it's that it's possible this coin that's an open problem like I said like we have DNS stuff like this that are like much more efficient but uh but which one doesn't allow us so we have no yeah but that no that's the thing that you can oh yeah that yeah you cannot do this like yeah what I mean is that uh by a sequence that you need to have some interaction between the the miners you cannot just like do your part and put it on the yudiko um like you know just compute your own share and put it on the on the yudiko like blockchain what what what you were asking yeah but but then still like you have like uh you need like you have n square mentioned because you need to have like a message for every part of the day so so so yeah I mean no I like yeah I still we don't know how to do yeah I think yeah definitely like I mean well yeah uh I thought today like a like long-term problem well I I can just say could be like a number of ideas that we have thought about but that um yeah either require no thermostat or that didn't work we thought about doing something like hierarchical signing so think about what we are doing with the consensus but do the same like with signing like have just like subnets that do the signing and then kind of like combine all of the signing together but again because of the interactions that are necessary for the DKG that's actually like really painful to do this because then you need to have kind of like subnets interacting with subnets which then becomes like the um complex um also like like we have some kind of like small improvements that we actually for the new implement so first we can use like this very kind of like native noticing um functionality so it's just like you know let's say it doesn't like let's say you have like five keys and you just require like three out of this like five keys to sign then you know we could use that and just like subdivide the the whole committee into five different groups and you know just like parallelize this but like each group you have to know but I think I already know sorry okay so why is it that's one of you so each group would have to have another majority yes oh yes basically the problem I think when they do it doesn't work out no the thing is like basically I think you can work out what like I did it because I don't remember this the number like if you do some kind of like um you need to just work out like the threshold that you need to have maybe it's gonna be more than two thirds but yeah you need to have like a threshold for each group definitely uh you you need to find out like how much the adversary can have in one group and then to have that plus one in each group and having having meant it is degraded exponentially the problem that we cannot like with this solution we cannot have more than five groups because anyway like in bitcoin like then if you want to have that more signature it's gonna be so so it doesn't fail very well I honestly thought we were going to yeah uh so the things I think you could use something and hopefully not never do the big bad but something possibly is that you know if I for the minor I get one percent and then if I get one percent of the share they go off of share then it's gonna be something for me I'll never use the sign I don't know how it's you prepare not to be confused that is the thing like we see you like yeah should be one share of that I I'm just going to open it and see if we can do that. But there's a lot to be deal with. There's not a lot to be lined up with. And if you do that, then it's probably... I don't know what part of this is. So I'm going to start with you. Yeah, it's a lot to be lined up with. If you kind of define the problem... Yeah, that's a good one. If you like to line up with thousands, it's better to do different stuff. It's like a forum or whatever at the moment. And it's greater than that. If you like to work in the team, that's probably really great for this. I can work out what can be done. From feedback in the team. And that's the OVFT for us. For... I guess the thing is that a lot of people do it maybe... Yeah, yeah. If you think they're doing this for subnets or if they're... I don't know the number of them. They have the subnets. Yeah. That's my point. They're using the other two. And they don't have that many notes. They don't have that many notes. You're not going to have to grow. If you have thousands, you're looking to have even more. Yeah, yeah. Ideally, in the numbers we want, the big number. You're not kind of... Okay, that's the problem. We're seeing this as you're doing it. On another side, here. We talk from there. Like, right now, you're using the other two. In this case, what do you do? I think I'm using my effect. So, I think what they do is different than... So, what they do, they... Yeah. So, okay. First, what I want to say is that there's also this paper mystery that does exactly what... kind of, like, in their own framework. So, not... According to... According to them, it's self-proclaimed. That's why we do the kind of, like, same thing. So, basically, even if you have, like, a lot of minors, like, anyway, you're going to sample the same... So, for us, we complain about something, because if we wanted to kind of, like, adapt it in our way, we would have the issue where the sample is expected to do the... science is known in that sense, because we need to know that. So, for dynamic effort, then it's problematic because if the adversary can kind of act hard or bribe them, then, because it's simple, like, they're... Do you mind if I get to tell the one who promotes the sample? No, the mystery is the one from Aguilo's sample. Aguilo's sample? So, yeah. So, something... So, yeah. I had in mind... Yeah, so, something... Like, what we could have, like, maybe that would be, like, an overkill for not that great. Like, have something, not that private, something where you know for yourself if you are elected, but someone external does not know. But then, like, you could still argue that you could have some type of a rivalry attack. I don't understand that part. So... So, that's the... There was some idea about using a ring signature to do this, which was a big sort of thing. Like, maybe we don't know if it was an idea by Nicolas. We don't know if it's going to work or not, but the idea was to send up a Q ring signature such that we didn't know which participant was elected, only they knew from Delta and you would use the ring signature to see the final winner comes from the legitimate part. And then the advantage is that even though, like, the symbol is determined in advance, at least it's not perfect. So, yeah. That's... There was a lot of ideas, I guess. None of them were, like, great, but... But, yeah. Yeah. No, that's... So, do you want me to go now? So, yeah, that one for Babylon. So, yeah, very recent paper by the Stanford group. So, basically, what they have is, like, also they use proof of work in order to secure proof of state, but they don't use the Bitcoin chain. What they do is, like, they use, like, their own proof of work chain, but that is, like, merge mine with Bitcoin. So, the idea is, like, you don't need to, like... You can reuse some of that power. So, reuse some of that security. And then, what they have is, like, actually they use the proof of work chain as kind of, like, a time-stamping, like, service. So, what it means is that, like, let's say, like, there's one perfect block that is mine, then any miner can just, like, sense the checkpoints because I do not change. And then it will be added. So, you don't need to have, like, a majority of what you want to say. Only, like, one miner can do it. So, if you want more, then you could have, like, two legitimate blocks, two blocks that are checkpoints on the Babylon chain, even though they are conflicting. And what they say is, like, in the state, Babylon is, like, a time-stamping. So, basically, the first one that was included in Babylon is the correct one. So, you would use this as kind of, as a way to differentiate between these two. So, that happens. And also, they use it for, like, slashing against, like, easy hiding. They also use it as some sort of storing attack. So, they also use it as kind of, like, a fail-shake mechanism in the sense that if you don't have any some sort of storing attack, then you don't need Babylon for this. But then, if there is, like, some sort of storing attack, then you can use Babylon in order to slash the miners for this. So, it's, um, the difference comes from using, like, merge mining. So, that's the thing. Because also, like, for this, like, it's not really clear who will use that merge mining because it's really destroying miners like they are. You know. What do you think? What do you think? Okay, but the thing is, like, they have, no, yeah, they have work to do on top, like, they have, like, to be thrown in front of them. So, maybe some of the tools are taken here. Yeah, and then they don't have any issues with the elevators because, as I said, they won't need one report to be sure of how that can be to do that. So, that's another interesting thing. So, maybe we'll do the three things. And then bringing out to them, or? No, because, actually, I was thinking we're doing the same thing. Yeah, exactly. But now that I've done it, I, you know, yeah, yeah, because also, yeah, we want to clarify about that. So, I'll email them this and that. Yeah, but there's just a new new one. So, maybe see that. I don't know. Okay. Yeah, so I know if anyone, so I'll get some people at sea, maybe I can see if I can make it work sometimes during the week, and I can show you, but anyway, we'll do some maybe hacking, even maybe so I can show you the latest deal. I'll have, if I can connect to the internet, like, maybe I can make it work, but otherwise. Oh, yeah, actually, you have to because we're doing it to make it work. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. I don't know about you, but maybe it's very specific. What? What? Yeah, but they're wrong without it for 24 hours after you activate them, so. Ah, a window for a shield? No. Yeah, they sweep it inside your passport except for the two of you with me. Oh my God, I feel so rejected. You also did not get one? Actually, the old one, there are like 10 weeks, so maybe you can do that for it. Actually, it's medium. No, we just... I need to first, yeah. Oh, no, she's having internet. No, because just my internet was not connected. You can Google that for me. Today, I'm not actually saying that. I mean, I'm going to restart my machine, but it takes a few minutes to start anyway and then I can...  Oh, yes, sorry. No, that would be a problem. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. You're kidding me. Yeah, I'm just kidding. Okay, well, otherwise... For now, I think it's fine now. You should use my internet because then you can expect... Yeah, no, you can expect it anyway, that's fine. Yeah. I wonder why don't you take that one with you? Are you going to spend more than 10 gigabytes in a week? No, it's not important. Yeah, it's like... It's not important.


Mithraism, also known as the Mithraic Mysteries in the cult of Mithras, was a Roman mystery religion that was centred on the god Mithras. This mystery religion was popular amongst the imperial Roman army from around the 1st century AD to the 4th century, and it served as a rival to Christianity in many respects. Now Mithra himself, who was also known as Mayor, wasn't actually a Roman god He was an Iranian deity that was then adopted by the Romans at some point. Mithra was known as the god of the covenant, light, oath, justice and the sun. There are many iconic scenes of Mithras, who's also known as Mithra depending on the spelling, including being born from a rock, slaughtering a bull and having a banquet with the god's soul, meaning the sun. The mythological scene that is really at the heart of the cult of Mithras is Mithras himself slaughtering a bull within a cave, and this is also known as the Tauric Tony, and its full, highly esoteric and symbolic meaning is debated. Some say that from the death of the bull, an animal that signified fertility and strength sprung new life. It is said that when the bull died, a new cosmic order was sprung from this death, and this is partially an explanation or one interpretation of the symbolic significance of Mithras slaughtering the bull within the cave, with Mithra itself serving as a rival to Christianity in many respects. Mithraism, also known as the cult of Mithras, was popular throughout the Roman Empire, and it seems its centre was on Rome. Rome was the capital of Mithraism, but it was popular in various corners of the empire, including Rome and Britain. It was referred to by Roman writers of the time, not as Mithraism, which is a more modern name of this cult, of this mystery religion. It was referred to at the time as the Mithraic Mysteries or the Mysteries of the Persians. One thing that is certainly clear about Mithraism that will certainly reveal itself as we move through this video is that there are heavy Masonic vibes to Mithraism. For instance, the Andesophisticated system of initiation with seven grades or degrees of initiation. Initiates were known as the Syndexi, meaning those united by the handshake. The seven grades of initiation were Korax, meaning raven. Nymphus, meaning bridegroom. Miles, meaning soldier. Leo, meaning lion. Perses, meaning Persian. Heliodromus, meaning courier of and to the sun. And Peter, meaning father. The movement of the initiate through the grades or the degrees in the cult of the Mithras seemed to signify, according to their beliefs that is, the ascent of the soul after death. The seven grades of initiation seems to have been enacted by passing through seven gates and climbing seven steps, with these signifying one of the seven planetary gods. The zealous Mithraist gradually passed the spheres of these minor deities and finally reached the region of the fixed stars. Frescoes in Italy show the initiates, blindfolded, kneeling and prostrated. It seems during the initiation and as part of the symbolic ceremonies that took place, a kind of sacrificial death and rebirth was probably a core ceremony at the heart of the cult of Mithras. The cult predominantly attracted merchants, imperial administrators as well as soldiers, and all initiates seemed to be male. Roman emperors were also initiates as well. The emperors Commodus and Julian were known to be initiates of Mithreism and in 307 AD, the emperor Diocletian consecrated a temple to Mithra close to the River Danube, the protector of the empire. The initiates would meet in secret underground temples where they would conduct the ritual ceremonies and God knows what else. These were often dark private places with no windows, away from prying eyes. In 1954, during the construction of an office block in the city of London, an ancient Roman temple dedicated to the god Mithras was uncovered. It is thought that this was built in the 3rd century AD by Roman Londoner, someone who must have had considerable wealth and all the right connections so to speak. Londonium, modern in day London, was an important site for the Romans in Britain. The temple is very close to the Bank of England headquarters in the city of London, and in 2010, Bloomberg acquired land in Wallbrook Street and went on to build its European headquarters in the exact site where the ancient Roman temple of Mithras was located. Bloomberg has even incorporated the London Mithrium Museum into the bottom floor of its new European headquarters. In relation to Mithraism itself, it essentially had come to an end and been eliminated by the end of the 4th century AD. It had increasingly came under pressure from Christianity, and over the 4th century AD, it had been suppressed to the point that it was pretty much eliminated according to the tradition enemy by the end of that century. Speaking of Roman Britain, did the Roman occupation of Britain make Celtic Britons taller? To find out, please click here. Thanks for watching. Please subscribe and hit the bell, and tell your friends and family about this channel. For the ways to support this work, it will be all in the description below. Thanks again for watching, and I'll see you next time.


There were a number of technologies that were shown from sort of bottom to top. There were several new front-haul technologies. Front-haul is the technology that sort of allows you to separate the antenna from the thing that's sending the signals to the antenna. So there were technologies that showed how to do that using Ethernet as opposed to just a solid fiber. You can have an Ethernet network between the antenna and the thing driving the antenna. New ways of doing the signaling across the actual antennas. And that's very interesting to the focus group, of course, because while we're not involved in the radio side, we are involved in the network and how to control the network. So anything that puts a network between the antenna and the thing driving the antenna is very interesting to us. There were demonstrations of the softwareization, two or three demonstrations of the softwareization. One which showed a virtualization or a containerization technology which is referred to as containers or docker containers, which is a very lightweight form of isolating a piece of software where we showed 4G, completely isolated in these very, very lightweight software containers. We were able to bring up multiple 4G networks. One demonstration showing the ability to bring up two new 4G slices and then be able to move the components around. We were also able to demonstrate the creation of three different 5G slices within this architecture that had a C-RAN transport network and a data center. So we were able to create and demonstrate ultra low latency slice complete with UE's. Test you big, they're big. They're not nice little things like this right now. Ultra low latency, ultra high reliability and then the enhanced mobile broadband. So the three basic slice types that are being discussed by 3GPP, we showed an infrastructure able to actually create those. We showed the ability to create non-IP technologies within a slice, information-centric networking that was shown. We showed the ability of the softwareization system to react to events in the network and to take action and correct them without human intervention. We also had almost the entire afternoon or three sessions during the afternoon talking about next-generation application mechanisms within a slice that are not IP. Those are the some of the highlights. It was a very exciting day and people seemed pretty interested by these demonstrations. It was all in all, it was a great week.