at underground facilities that are very hard to reach militarily, accelerating advanced centrifuges that shortened the time spent in which they can achieve breakout capacity, and and they would be able to maintain that the reason that they ended negotiations was because the united states was operating in bad faith. " the deal. and it would be -- and it blew up the deal. and there would be some sympathy for that. sanctions would fray because imposing these sanctions are a hardship on a number of countries around the world. they would love to be able to buy iranian oil. the reason they have hung in there, despite it being against their economic interests, is that we have shown that we are trying to solve this problem. antivert some sort of military showdown. in that context, there is no

good arguments for us to try to undercut, undermine the negotiations until they have played themselves out. if iran ends up not being able to say yes, if they cannot provide us the kind of assurances that would lead myself and david cameron and others to conclude that they are not obtaining a nuclear weapon then we are going to have to explore other options, i will be the first one to come to congress and say when you tighten the screws. and that's not the only options that are going to be available. i consistently said we leave all options on the table. congress should be aware that if this diplomatic solution fails the risks and likelihood that this ends up being at some point in military confrontation is heightened. and congress will have to own that as well. and that will have to be debated by the american people.

and we may not be able to rebuild the kind of coalition we need in that context. if the world believes we were not serious about negotiations. so i take this very seriously. i don't question the good faith of some folks that think this might be helpful. but it is my team is at the table. we are steeped in the stuff day in and day out. we don't make these judgments blindly. we have been working on this for 5, 6, 7 years. we consult closely with allies like the united kingdom in making these assessments. i'm asking congress to hold off because our negotiators, our partners -- those who are most intimately involved in this have assessed that it will jeopardize the possibility of resolving -- providing a diplomatic solutions to one of the most difficult and long-lasting national security

problems that we have faced in a very long time. congress these to show patience. with respect to the veto, i said to my democratic caucus colleagues yesterday that i will be so a bill that comes to my desk and i will make this argument to the american people as to why i am doing so. i respectably -- respectfully request them to hold off for a few months to see if we have the possibility of solving a big problem without resorting potentially to war. i think that is worth doing. we will see how persuasive i am, but i -- if i'm not persuading congress, i will be taking my argument to be working people. >> the big picture is very clear

-- the sanctions that america and the european union put in place have had an effect. that has led to pressure, that pressure has led to talks and those talks at least have a prospect of success. i would argue with the president -- how much better is that of the other potentials? to answer you directly, i have contacted a couple of senators this morning, i mays to one or two more this afternoon not in any way as british prime minister to tell the american senate what it should or shouldn't do, that would be right. but simply to make the point that the country that stands alongside america in these final negotiations it's the opinion of the united kingdom that further sanctions or further threat of sanctions at this point won't actually help to bring the talks to successful conclusions, and they could fracture the international unity that there has been, which has been so valuable in presenting a united front to iran. i say this as someone who played quite a strong role in getting

europe to sign up to the very tough sanctions, including oil sanctions in the first place. i simply make this point -- though sanctions have had an effect. to those who said if you do an interim deal, if you even start discussing with the iranians any of these things -- the sanctions will fall apart. the pressure will dissipate, no one will be able to stick at it. that has demonstrably been shown not to be true. so the pressure is still there if the iranians say no and there is no deal then by all means, let's sit down and work out what exercise is to put in place. i think we are united in the simple thought which is a deal that takes iran away from a nuclear weapon is better than either iran having a nuclear weapon, or military action to prevent it. in the end, comes down to a simple choice. i do what i can to help as one of the countries negotiating, sure i will. [indiscernible]

>> i think the way the president put it, i wouldn't disagree with. it's very hard to know what the iranian thinking is about this. i'm the first british prime minister in 35 years to meet with an iranian president. it's very hard to know with the thinking is. but there is a very clear offer which is to take iran away from nuclear weapons, and to conclude an agreement with them, which would be mutually beneficial. that's what should happen. i think we have a question from the robinson that the bbc. >> nate robinson, bbc news. with extra prime minister -- with extra security being put in place for the jewish community and police officers, would it be right to conclude that the threat of an attack on the streets of britain is now all but imminent? you have spoken of the threat posed by fighters coming back from syria. do you ever worry that this is a

legacy of the decision of the united states and the united kingdom to an effect stand on the sidelines during serious bloody civil war? on the economy, you said you agree -- is he right, is it time to stick to the plan? >> first of all, we do face a very serious islamist extremist terrorist threat in europe america, across the world. we have to be incredibly vigilant in terms of that thread. we have to strengthen police and security. we have to make sure we do everything we can to keep our country safe. and that involves an incredibly long-term, patient, disciplined approach. there's no one single thing to be done. it means closing down ungoverned spaces the terrorists operate in, it means working against isis in iraq and syria. it means canceling this narrative that is perverting the

religion of islam. we need to share intelligence and security, to try and prevent terrorist atrocities from taking place. it means all of these things, it is going to be a long, patient, and hard struggle. i'm quite convinced we will come through it, and we will overcome it. because in the end, the values we hold to our freedom and democracy, of having open and tolerant societies. these of the strongest values there can be. in the end, we will come through. but like some challenges we have faced in the past, it will take great discipline, great patience, great hard work. you asked specifically about the question about imminence. we have a system where threat levels are set by the joint terrorism assessment center. they are not set by politicians. they have judged the threat we face a severe. that means, in their words, an attack is highly likely. if ever there is an imminent threat of attack, he goes to the next level up, which is

critical but is their decision, not mine. my responsibility is to make sure we marshall everything we have is a country in order to defeat this threat. on the jewish community, i think it's good that the match follows and police have announced they will be stepping up patrols. i met with the jewish leadership council earlier this week, we already provide through their security organizations, we provide government money to help protect jewish schools, but i think we have to recognize that in fighting terrorism, as we found in britain before you cannot simply rely on policing and security. this is a job for everyone. this is a role we are going to have to play in the vigilance and in making sure that we keep our community safe. >> with respect to syria, and that connection of foreign fighters, there is no doubt that in the chaos and the vacuum that has been created in big chunks of syria, that has given an opportunity for foreign fighters

to both come in and come back out. i chaired a un security council meeting and, we are now busy working with our partners to implement a series of actions, to identify who may be traveling to syria in order to get trained to fight or to hatch plots that would be activated upon return to their home countries. so it's a very serious problem. the notion that this is occurring because of the united states or great britain or other countries who are on the sidelines i think is first of all mischaracterizes our position. we haven't been standing on the sidelines. it is true we did not invade syria. if the assertion is that had we invaded syria, we would be less

prone to terrorist attacks i will leave it to you to play out that scenario, and whether that sounds accurate. we have been very active in trying to resolve a tragic situation in syria. diplomatically, through humanitarian efforts, through the removal of chemical weapons from syria that had been so deadly. and now, as isis has moved forward, we have been very active integrating their capabilities inside of syria even as we working with partners to make sure that the foreign fighters situation is resolved. but i think david's point is an acute one. this phenomenon of violent extremists -- the ideology, the

networks, the capacity to recruit young people -- this has metastasized, and it is widespread. it has penetrated communities around the world. i do not consider it an x essential threat, as david said, this is one we will solve. we are stronger, we are representing values that the vast majority of muslims believe in. intolerance -- in tolerance working together to build rather than to destroy. and so, this is a problem that causes great heartache and tragedy, and destruction. but it is one that ultimately we are going to defeat. but we can't just defeated

through weapons. and one of the things we spoke about is -- how do we lift up those voices that represent the vast majority of the muslim world? so that karen -- counter narrative is put out there as aggressively and as nimbly as the messages coming out from these fanatics. how do we make sure we are working with local communities? and faith leaders, and families? whether in a neighborhood in london or a neighborhood in detroit, michigan so that we are inoculating ourselves against this kind of ideology. and that's going to be a slow plodding, systematic work. but it is work that i'm

confident we are going to be able to a compost, particularly when we have strong partners like the united kingdom. on the economy -- i would note that great britain and the united states are two economies that are standing out at a time when a lot of other countries are having problems. we must be doing something right. major garrett? >> think you, mr. president. good afternoon mr. prime minister. i want to make sure we heard what you were trying to say. you directed a message to congress in the context of running negotiations. but you are also sending a message to iran that if the sanction talks fail that war footing is the next most likely opportunity for our country.

atrocities in paris raids in belgian, i would like to ask you both that europe is at a turning point now in its recognition of what his threats are, and what its own mobilization is in terms of new laws security footing larger budgets, you both talk about cyber security. there is a crucial issue for both countries. backdoors and encryption to protect people and also privacy. i would like to comment on that. -- i would like your comments on that. >> i am not, repeat not suggesting that we are in immediate war footing, should negotiations with iran fail. but as david put it, if in fact our view is that we have to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon then we have to recognize the possibility that

should diplomacy fail, we have to look at other options to achieve that goal. if you listen sometimes to the rhetoric surrounding this issue. i think there is sometimes the view that this regime cannot be trusted. that, effectively, negotiations with iran are pointless. and since these claims are being made by individuals who see iran as a mortal threat, and want as badly as we do to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons the question becomes what other alternatives are available? that is part of what we have to

consider as to why it is so important for us to pursue every possible avenue to see if we can get a deal. and it has to be a good deal, not a bad deal. i have already shown myself willing to walk away from a bad deal. and the p5 plus one walked away with this. nobody is interested in some document that undermines our sanctions, and gives iran the possibility of -- whether covertly or gradually, building up its nuclear weapons capacity. we are not going to allow that and anything that we do -- any deal we arrive at, if we are going to arrive at one will be subject to scrutiny across the board. not just by the numbers of congress but more importantly by people who actually know how

the technical aspects of nuclear programs can advance. and how we can effectively verify in the most rigorous way possible, that the terms of the deal are being met. so, the bottom line is this -- we may not get there, but we have a chance to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully. i should point out also that even if we get a nuclear deal and we are assured that iran doesn't this nuclear weapons, we still have a whole bunch of problems with iran on state-sponsored terrorism. their rhetoric towards israel, their financing of hezbollah. we have differences with respect to syria. it's not as if suddenly, we have a great relationship with iran. it solves one particular problem.

it is urgent. and it solves it better than the other alternatives that might present selves -- present themselves. my main message to congress at this point is just hold your fire. nobody around the world, at least among the iranians, doubt my ability to get additional sanctions passed should this fail. that's not a hard vote to get through congress. the notion that we need to have additional sanctions, or even the possibility of sanctions hanging over their heads to force them to a better deal -- i think the iranians know that that is certainly our back pocket if negotiations fail. with respect to violent extremism, my impression is that europe has consistently taken

the seriously during the course of my presidency, we have worked collaboratively and with greater urgency, and a recognition that not only do you have foreigners who may be trying to hatch plots in europe, but also, given large immigrant populations it is important to reach out to and work with local communities. and to have a very effective intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation between countries and between united states and europe. there is no doubt that the most recent events have amplified those concerns. one of the things i've learned over the last six years is that there is always more that we can do.

we can always do it better. we learn from mistakes. each incident that occurs teaches our professionals how we might be able to prevent the next time. i'm confident that the very strong cooperation that exist with europe will get that much better in the months and years to come. [inaudible] here's were actually think that europe has some particular challenges. i said this to david. the united states has one big advantage in this whole process. it's not that our law enforcement or our intelligence services etc. are so much better.

although ours are very, very good. i think europeans recognize we have capabilities others don't have. our biggest advantage is that our muslim populations -- they feel themselves to be americans. and there is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation is part of our tradition. that is probably our greatest strength. it doesn't mean we aren't subject to the kinds of tragedies that we saw the boston marathon. but that, i think, has been helpful. there are parts of europe in which that is not the case. and that is probably the greatest danger that europe faces. which is why as they respond, as they work with us to respond to these circumstances, it's important for europe not to simply respond with a hammer

and law enforcement and military approaches to these problems. there also has to be a recognition that the stronger the it is, -- that ties of a frenchman of north african descent to french values, french republic, a sense of opportunity, that is going to be as important, if not more important then over time solving this problem. i think there is a recognition of that across europe. it is important we don't lose that. the last point i will make, and then i will turn it over to david, is with respect to the issue of intelligence gathering, encryptions, this is a challenge that we have been working on since i have been president. obviously, it was amplified when mr. snowden did what he did.

it has gone off the pages of the news, but we haven't stopped working on it. we have been in dialogues with companies, and have systematically works through ways in which we can meet legitimate privacy concerns, but also, meet the very real concerns that david identified, and my fbi ident -- my fbi director identified. social media and the internet is the primary way in which these terrorist organizations are communicating. that is no different than anybody else. but they are good at it and when we have the ability to track that in a way that is legal, conforms with due process , rule of law, and presents

oversight, then that is a capability we have to preserve. the biggest damage that was done as a consequence of this known disclosures was i think him in some cases, a complete undermining of trust. someone say that was justified. i would argue that although there are some legitimate concerns there, overall, the united states government and from what i have seen, the british government have operated in a scrupulous and lawful way to try to balance these security and try to see concerns. and we can do better, that is what we are doing. but we are still going to have to find ways to make sure that if an al qaeda affiliate is operating in great britain, or the united states, that we can

try to prevent real tragedy. i think the companies want to see that as well. they are patriots, they have families that they want to see protected. we just have to work through in many cases, what are technical issues, so is not so much there's a difference in intent but how to square the circle on these issues is difficult. we are working with partners like great britain and united kingdom, but we are also going to be in dialogue with companies to try and make that work. >> on the iranian issue, i won't add much to what the president said. i just think if this point, i don't think you can characterize it as if there's a deal, then the pressure is off iran, and if there isn't a deal, new pressure has to be applied to iran. even if there is a deal, the key to that deal will be transparency and verification, and making sure that this country is in developing a nuclear weapon.

and that would mean repeated pressure, even after a deal is done. i think that's very important. i would back up what barack says about recognizing that in so many other ways, we have some major disagreements with what the iranians have been doing and britain has suffered particularly from the appalling way that our embassy and staff were treated in that country. we approach this with a huge amounts of skepticism and concern. the goal of an iran without a nuclear weapon makes it worthwhile. your question -- is this a turning point for europe in terms of terrorism -- i would argue that we turned some time ago. maybe britain in particular, because of the appalling attacks that took place in 2005, but there have been attacks elsewhere in europe. since i have been prime minister, there has been at least one major plot every year. of quite a significant nature

that we have managed to intercept, stop, and prevents. so the awareness of the scale of the challenge we face is absolutely they are across government, cross parliament across the different political parties, and the police, intelligence services. i think there is an opportunity for countries in europe and perhaps up to now have been less affected to work with them, and to make sure that we share knowledge and skills, because when you say that -- the turning point is making sure your legislation is up-to-date. i can sure police and security services have the capabilities they need. making sure you have programs that can channel extremists away empty radicalize them. making sure you are better integrating your communities. it's doing all of those things. i very much agree with what barack says about the importance of building strong and integrated societies. i made a speech about this in munich, saying it had been a mistake in the past when some countries had treated different

groups and different religious groups as sort of separate locks -- blocks, rather than trying to field -- build a common home together. it is what we should be doing that is what our policy is directed to. you need to have a multiracial, multiethnic society, of huge opportunity. where in one generation, or two generations, you can come to our country and be in the cabinet, you can serve the highest level in the armed forces. you can sit on the bench as a judge. i have in my cabinet someone just like that who, in two generations, his family has gone from arriving in britain to sitting -- i think that's vitally important. as is combating poverty. but here's i think the really determining point. you can have tragically, people who've had all the advantages of integration who had all the economic opportunities that are countries can offer, who still get seduced by this poisonous, radical death cold of a

narrative we've seen in recent weeks, people have gone to fight in syria who had every opportunity and every advantage in life, in terms of integration. so never lose sight of the real enemy here, which is the poisonous narrative that is perverting islam. that is what we have to focus on. recognizing that we help ourselves in the struggle, that we create societies of genuine opportunity if we create genuine integration in our communities. but never lose sight of the real heart of the matter. as for the issue on the techniques necessary for intelligence services to help keep us safe -- all i would say is -- the president and i had a good discussion about this earlier. i don't think either of us are trying to enunciate some new doctrine. the doctor not approach this -- i'm sorry to disappoint you. i take a very simple approach to this, which is ever since we have been sending letters are making telephone calls to each

other, mobile phone calls to each other, or contacting each other, it has been possible in both our countries, in my country by signed warrants by the home secretary, to potentially listen to a call between two terrorists, to stop them in their activity. in your country, a judicial process. we have had our own. we are not asking for backdoors, we believe in very clear front doors through legal processes that should help to keep a country safe. i only argument is as technology develops, as the world moves on, we should try to avoid the safe havens that could otherwise be created for terrorists to talk to each other. that's the goal that i think is so important. because i am in no doubt, having been premised are for foreign half years, having seen how our intelligence services were, i know that some of these plots could be prevented through the lives we get saved, there's a very real connection between that and the capabilities that our intelligence services within the law used to defend our people.

i think the final question is from robert moore. >> thank you. robert moore with the british network. prime minister, it is clear there is a security under -- security alert underway in britain. is that based on specific intelligence? should people be concerned about doing their daily activities this weekend. ? do you regarded terrorist attack on british soil as inevitable? you say there's a dialogue with big american tech companies. but do share it deep our minister's view that the current environment is so severe that there does need to be a swing of the pendulum a little bit maybe from privacy towards counterterrorism? this area of private encrypted communications is a very dangerous one, potentially, in terms of facilitating dialogue between terrorist groups? >> on the issue of the threats

we face -- the level has been set at severe. that is set by an independent expert organization. so people can have full confidence that these things are never done for any other motives then literally to look at the evidence that is there about terrorist threats coming to set the level accordingly. when the level is set severe, that means that the authorities believe an attack is highly likely. if we believed it was imminent, you would move to the next level, which is critical. we clearly do face a very real threat in our country. in recent months, as i was discussing with the president, we've had a number of potential attacks averted, for instance, on british police officers. so that is the threat picture. it is regularly reviewed, regularly updated, but it shouldn't be moved unless there is real evidence to do so. in terms of the protection to the jewish community, and indeed, other communities and indeed, two police officers

themselves, this is based on what has happened in france on the whole picture that we see. it is sensible, precautionary measures to make sure that we do what we can to reassure those communities. communities to, who are all too aware of the threat they face. this is a bigger challenge for us. i think one of the most moving sites in paris was to see so many people holding up signs saying je suis -- i'm a cop, i'm a jew. they are signaled out and offer anything other than the fact they were jewish. i think it's very important that we speak up and stand up for those communities, and give them the protection they deserve. >> obviously, in the wake of terrorist, our attention is heightened. but i have to tell you, over the last six years, threat streams

are fairly constant. david deals with them every day i deal with them every day. our counterterrorism professionals deal with them every day. i don't think there is a situation in which -- because things are so much more dangerous, the pendulum needs to swing. i think what we need to find is a consistent framework, whereby our publics have confidence that their government can protect both them but not abuse our capacity to operate in cyberspace. and because this is a whole new world, as david said, the laws that might have been designed for the traditional wiretap have to be updated. how we do that needs to be debated.

here in the united states, and u.k.. i think we are getting better at it, i think we are striking the balance better. i think the companies here in united states at least recognize that they have a responsibility to the public but also want to make sure they are meeting their response abilities to their customers and those who are using their products. the environ we are engaged in is designed to make sure that -- the environment we are engaged in is designed to make sure that all of us feel confident that if there is an actual threat out there, our law enforcement and our intelligence officers can identify that threat, and track that threat. at the same time, that our governments are not going around

fishing into whatever text you might be sending. -- texts you might be sending on your smart phone. they're going to be situations where hard cases. but for the most part, those who are worried about big brother -- sometimes obscure or deliver league nor all the legal safeguards that had been put in place to assure people's privacy. and to make sure the government is not abusing these powers. on the other end, there are times where law enforcement, and those of us whose job it is to protect the public aren't thinking about their problems because we are trying to track and prevent a particular terrorist event from happening. it's useful to have libertarians

and others tapping is on the shoulders in the midst of this process and reminding us that their values at stake it well. technologies are evolving in ways that potentially make this trickier. if we get into a situation in which the technologies do not allow us at all to track someone we are confident as a terrorist -- is a terrorist. if we find evidence of a terrorist plot somewhere in the middle east that traces directly back to london, or new york, we have specific information we are confident this individual or this network is about to activate a plot and despite knowing that information despite having a phone number

despite having a social media address or e-mail address -- that we can't penetrate that? that's a problem. that's the kind of dialogue we are having with these companies. part of it is a legal issue part of it is a technical question. overall i'm confident that we can balance these imperatives, and we shouldn't feel as if because we have just seen such a horrific attack in paris that suddenly, everything should be going by the wayside. we have unfortunately -- this has been a constant backdrop. i think it will continue to be for any prime minister president, for some time to come. we have to make sure that we don't overreact, but that we remain vigilant and are serious

about our response abilities. thank you, everybody. we appreciate it. >> [no audio] [inaudible] >> they only got through a handful of questions related to terrorism, a little related to cyber security, and one glaring domestic polity -- policy question about mitt romney. he said no comments. mark out in san diego, want to ask you the first question here -- what did you take away from this news conference in terms of whether there was actually any news and it -- in it? >> the closest thing to news is the president's very strong statement about vetoing congressional iran sanctions measure. the president and the administration have made it clear all along that they don't

welcome a new round of sanctions coming from congress, because they like the track to negotiations we are on. like president biden, john kerry, and that president have all said they want to be in control of this process. beyond that, i think the news such as is -- it is that the president had a very strong ally in prime mr. cameron. in a time when his relationships with other foreign leaders are not nearly as personally or professionally as close. not a lot of daylight between those two guys and held it with threats around the world. >> i think you're right that the only thing that comes close to news is the statement on the veto -- confirming what he suggested revia slates that there would be a veto if they tried to move the sanctions bill. he was come as you said very forceful, saying his message to congress was holder fire. he also said again, not for the first time, that he thought the

prospect of a deal were less than 50-50. i'm curious in terms of pure analysis, whether you think there would ever be a moment with the president would ever say anything other than the prospect of a deal were less than 50-50, even if you deal -- even if he believed the process -- the likelihood of a deal was higher. >> there are officials are less pessimistic. but they don't see any other choice than to try and strike the deal as long as the iranians and the other people will stay at the table. but the administration -- this is a top issue. you get mixed signals a regular basis from a ron about what their posture is towards negotiations. but the president is playing the strongest hand he can in a tough situation, which is to try and keep congress from setting the talks back, play the talks out. as i said privately, i don't think people at the top level of the government think it is like 50-50, they think it is lower. there is no alternative than to try and make it work and call the bluff of the iranians and keep the thing moving.

>> i want to go to margaret in our washington bureau. you cover the white house down there, it was pretty clear today that if there was anything the white house wanted to make news on, it was on the thing we have just been discussing in terms of the veto threat. you have any sense going into this that that was the thing they were trying -- that was the one thing they wanted to take away to be from this news conference? >> their main goal is to present a unified front on security, whether it's a run specifically about how they will deal with isis. they have different constituencies in mind but obama is against the republicans in congress, david cameron is up for reelection. the usual advantages standing close together, the message on iran was very clear. back off. >> to see anything else in there that struck you in terms of this news conference -- that struck you as new were noteworthy?

>> the massively, for both of them, they put on a show regularly where they sort of tease each other about whose language is the real english and how the british tried to prevent the u.s. from becoming independent. but in the end, they circle back to this narrative of how close buddies they are. president obama touched on the fun with the word pro -- bro they have had in the news. but in terms of real policy, it was very much about the approach towards iran and isis. >> thanks, margaret. amaga phil mattingly at the white house. the one thing i know about you you are the expert on british politics. anglophile par excellence. david cameron is facing an election coming up in may. were there things you saw, in terms of how prime minister

cameron behaved that look to you like he was a guy in the midst -- under pressure in terms of his a mystic politics, in places where he could detect he was playing in a very clear way to constituencies that come -- that home? >> when he talks about economics he is. the president actually repeats with a managing director of the imf said about the economy. the uk's doing something right, moving forward and went along with the u.s., two of only the countries that are weathering a pretty difficult economic storm. you're are basically cutting campaign as often what the president is saying today. i think if you look at the president's approval rating in the u.k., it's fairly high. it's a lot higher than it is here. so every time the president complements how the prime minister has done economically hobbyist on the security side of things, that is something the benefits them for 2015. >> we talked about this before. the notion that president obama

has top advisers on different sides in that election. he was full throated in his support for david cameron. do think david is sitting in chicago gnashing his teeth over that? >> i think he would have liked if the president had tempered his willingness to complement the prime minister a little. there is no denying that the two have a good relationship. the two leaders get along very well, probably as good if not better than any relationship with a foreign leader in the world, for the president right now. that always shows through. you will see that when these two are together. >> thank you phil, thank you margaret. we will have more of 5:00 eastern on "all due respect," and on bloomberg.com. our coverage of the best of the union party starts tonight. thanks for watching. ♪

>> i'm cory johnson. this is "bloomberg west." it's been a tough week for bitcoin, prices falling 32% in two days. prices fell from $290 to $173. it bounced a little bit according to the price index. venture capitalists poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the technology, maybe the fastest growing area of venture capital investment in silicon valley. kim draper has lost six of 3% of the $18 million he put into this just six months ago. bitcoin had its 15 minutes of fame, or is there more than this than meets the eye? paul kedrosky is back with more.

i want to make fun of tim draper, but he is kind of the poster boy for what not to do with $18 million, right? collects that was quite a hit he has taken. it's the winner's curse. there was something like 44, 45 bidders where we got the latest chunk of bitcoin you can correct me, but i think it was round six under dollars. -- $600. you could do the math. >> we don't know what he paid but we know the price after he paid a jumped dramatically. that may have reflected the stick he put on the market. i don't mean to make fun of him, he really sees the future, maybe not in the value of the coin, but the technology behind it. i was describing our moaning bashar morning meeting. the price is the least interesting thing about bitcoin. >> yeah, that has become almost a cliché comment about bitcoin.

anytime anyone talks about the value of the currency, and what's happening with bitcoin itself, you respond with well, that's hardly interesting. what's interesting is the block chain framework, this way of sort of anonymously tracking transactions relatively cheaply and even freely making transactions that deviously got hamstrung by the existing financial system. we are investors in that as well. i think it's a key point, but i also think we can't separate it from how much of the bitcoin frenzy has been about the speculation related to the currency. and these two things that gun so mixed up. i always say it's kind of like as if you mix up html, there's markup language that created the web, and websites themselves. the values of these things are tied together but let's not get a speculative frenzy to let what we think about one influence what we think about the other. >> i'm thinking about early websites like lycos a dominant site in the early web. lycos is going to be the future of the world, but the internet was the exciting thing.

baby bitcoin price is not the future of currency, but the technology might be. -- may be bitcoin price is not the future of currency. >> it's like html, it's a markup language for currency, kind of like html was the markup leg which for the world wide web. the notion is really powerful, that the platform. getting all wrapped up in what happens to day-to-day bitcoin prices is like getting wrapped up in what happened in the day-to-day price of lycos back in the day. >> at least for me, i think for most people, when they really start to dig into what bitcoin is, with the technology is, they walk away from those meetings thinking i think i might buy a couple. when the personal wealth of so many people is getting crushed, what does that do to the development of those business plans by those people? >> let's make a separation. tim or barry, who has this kind

of -- investing in it as a speculative currency, is a different thing and what we are doing in union square, where you invest in blocks chain as a technology like html that supports a must less costly transaction. these two are very different things. and a big what's happening with bitcoin prices impacted all with what happens in respect to block chain technology. >> i guess the lesson might be that we might make more money owning the banks than owning the money in the banks. paul kedrosky, thank you very much. have a great weekend. the bwest byte sarah frier joins us now. what you have? >> 60 million. >> that is a lot of something.

>> that is actually the number of fans of youtube stars that will be starring in youtube's own halftime show. they are going to produce their own territory the super bowl. -- two air during the super bowl. >> how does this work? >> it's mostly catering to people who watch the super bowl for the commercials. youtube has always been really big about showing super bowl commercials before they air. they have someone of people come to watch those. this is like bringing on performers and bring on people who make fake commercials, and general funny people, the youtube set. >> what about the real super bowl traditions during halftime. the puppy bowl? >> i will probably switch to that. >> the great thing about the second stream experiences you can do both. >> you have the puppy bowl, you

have katy perry with lenny kravitz at this halftime show. but the puppies neglect the puppy -- the puppies, -- >> the puppies will always be entertaining. >> i think elon musk, rather than trying to get to mars, could crash the more rockets in the barges. >> the explosion halftime thrown. >> you could have an autonomous drone crashing spaceship bowl. but the puppy bowl is going to be hard to beat. >> these youtube stars are so popular with everyone these days. >> it interesting. the youtube promise is that when thousand videos, 1000 different things to look at, more valuable then one big thing. this may be disproves that. sara, thank you. you can watch us streaming on your tablet, phone bloomberg.com, apple tv, and amazon fire tv. "bloomberg west," will be back next week, after we know who is

going to the super bowl. see you on monday ♪ . ♪

>> this is "bottom line," the intersection of main street perspective. to our viewers here in the united states, and to those of you joining us from around the world, welcome. we have full coverage of stocks and stories making headlines on this friday. willem marx prepares for his trip to cuba as the u.s. eases travel and trade rules starting today. peter cook has a wrapup of the republican retreat being held in hershey, pennsylvania.