Topic: ㅤ - page 18. (Read 11875 times)

I want to understand how centralised the bitcoin  El Salvador citizens are buying is. Do you mean El Salvador government buys btc in bulk and resell to her citizens?
Or you meant that the wallet the country is using is owned by the government and centralised.
What is the essence of the centralization, does the government has a means to make citizens not lose money during dip?
If no, why the centralization. Anyway, if the country allows people to take charge of their coin and  buy coin anonymously if they want, I don't think there's a problem.

Maybe the Main reason is that the government mainly are the one who wants bitcoin  but they are lacked of encouragement to people instead they put it directly that people don't understand and just put it in their Mouth.
this is the reason also why there are arguments happens in that matter un tp now.

What happens is that adoption cannot be forced, in our case we are invested in bitcoin not because someone else made us adopt bitcoin but due to our own conviction it is the right choice, so while awareness can be raised through different programs people will decide on their own if it is on their best interest to adopt bitcoin or not, and if they feel they do not need something like bitcoin at the moment then they wont, people downloaded the wallet because of the free money they would receive but once that was done they did not had too much of an incentive to keep using it, so I think that what we are seeing at El Salvador was to be expected.

it's like you said. and it was his haste that made him fail. The approach must be slow. attracting the interest of the people there must be gradual and slow. like you said. can also start by creating a special area that adopts bitcoin. and expanded at a later date after seeing increased interest and users.

Isn't it too early to say that it failed? Most people still feel that it's hard to utilize or do with the certain implementations they have. Remember that people tend to prefer something more accessible than something more complex than something they are used to. It's just that they couldn't wholly absorb it and would like to make things easier in life, hence the low adoption rate.

This would always be a trial for everyone, and maybe if it's even more implemented or something, people would just accept it. Is it always going to be about having an alternative, right? So perhaps show the benefits of using it instead of cash etc. Maybe they would use it more or something.

Also, go to table 3. These people who have been continuing to use the Chivo wallet appear to be using it for payments made through American dollars. The government of El Salvador might have created their own dollar stablecoin instead of bitcoinizing their country hehehe. It appears Jack Maller's original plan for Strike in using USDT might have been more preferable for the people.

It's not about using somebody else's money, it's about cutting your own profit a little bit to incentivize the adoption of something that is going to be useful and make the difference on the life of every adopters futurely.

And if merchants manage to reduce costs of imported goods when dealing with bitcoin, it could not be even necessary to cut part of the profit, but just pass along the fair price to the final customer.

It has nothing to do with whitepaper, though, it's just a possible practical approach to reach the most basic layers of the society in a more efficient way. LOL!

im not the weasel that wants people to use LN you idiot

i am sorry that i openly warn people of the crappiness of LN. and im sorry that you didnt realise the flaws of chivo was your favoured network and how you fell into your own hole. but you digging your own hole by saying anyone that brings up LN is a weasel backfires on you yet again. because you love advertising it.. YOU endlessly try to get people to use it even when in this very topic you were describing its usage as crap/shitty.

by the way i make many comments about many things. the only reason you think i only talk about LN is because YOU are the LN centric focused idiot that only see's LN focused topics. and yes i appear in them to warn people away from it because guess what.. unlike your dream. LN is not bitcoin

now grow up and realise the flaws of your network and stop dreaming the utopian dream.
use this topic as your awakening to you finally realising that there are flaws and you should stop being a animal craving to pull others into your hole.

..
i know you never do any research. but atleast try for once to look into things if you ever dare want to reply about something that you got wrong. not via your buddies patting you on the back asking you to recite a silly script. but instead actually research the topic.
EG find out what the flaws were of the chivo wallet.
you will find out it was the LN element.. which is why they dropped the LN element and now going stronger into the custodial element, not the other way round

..
learn from this
trying to thrust people into using a new payment system thats not like the system they are accustom to, where that system has flaws, does not create good adoption campaign.

do you get it yet

Just give it some time because we arent just passing 1 year time on this bitcoin adoption on El Salvador and i agree into that point or feedback in speaking about people are expecting or having that

high anticipation on things that should really be happening and we know on how reality works and we know that it couldnt be that possible on having things to be in proper order or supposed to be
on first integration.Of course it would really be taking some time and would really be making out adjustments.Citizens wont really able to embrace out easily and its true
that there would really be hesitance and doubts despite on making it as a legal tender.

Has it really failed and we can say it already?
Bitcoin is a new technology and it just needs time to be established and understood by many people.
Expectations of Bitcoin were very high, maybe too high.

I would not say it is failed already because I would wait some more time and see.
Give Bitcoin time and more people will hold it. 

Since you took this example on why they should get Bitcoin hoping that the price would move up eventually, what happens if the market comes down drastically and they purchased the coin at a higher valuation, do you think that the debtors will hold till the next rally to collect the debt. So i consider it as a double edged sword and i am against forcing people to do anything including making Bitcoin usage mandatory.

I agreed with your observation because Bitcoin for payment purposes will not work as it is, due to a variety of reasons, like what I experienced in my country, most users are complaining about the transaction fees because they were deducted from their balance they consider it as the additional burden that's why it's not suitable for that purposes, second is the complexity of sending Bitcoin through the complex wallet addresses, etc. and IMO if this problem will not be fixed Bitcoin adoption for payment purposes will not work just like what happened in El Salvador.

But what I believe is if Bitcoin will use for other purposes like an investment or even savings I think it will be more useful because it is not required daily transactions so it's not burning fees.

Adopting bitcoin could help you in some ways. For example, if your nation makes let's say 100 million dollars debt every single year on average, and grows 10% every year on debt, then you would be able to pay that back if you get bitcoin with it and it goes up. That way one day bitcoin may do like 10x and you could sell it and pay all of your debt and it would be helping you.

This isn't a guaranteed thing and maybe your debt could grow faster than your bitcoin reserves could and it would never be paid in full, but as long as bitcoin goes up, that should be a beneficial thing. Instead you could invest back into your nation but in 99% of the nations corruption prevents that.

You are like a weasel, you run in any discussion and somehow manage to bring up LN regardless of whether or not it is relevant like here. Chivo is a closed-source centralized custodial wallet created and controlled by a government. Whether or not it also uses LN has nothing to do with its shittiness.

Probably because El Salvador is an impoverished country where the means of survival include having enough to eat with sustainable shelter. People don't recognize the luxury of living in a developed nation where law and order is maintained, and the economy is healthy enough to diversify into currencies aside from the government backed fiat. Though I wouldn't call it a complete failure -- these types of adoptions and overhauls of financial systems can take years, if not decades. But understand that a poor population can't reasonably be expected to immediately adopt a digitalized currency with no understanding of how it works. It takes time.

I would guess that every single nation is in bad economical situation right now. Nations with huge economies grew smaller as well, not as bad as smaller ones but still it didn't do well. In a world where the UK or the USA and what not is doing badly, it is highly expected for nations like El Salvador should not be really a shock to us that they would be doing even worse.

Bitcoin adoption could get higher there overtime when people see each other gain a lot but we haven't seen that since the legal tender deal. If it was done in 2019 and then the price increased during 2020 and 2021, we would have seen a lot more adoption. Which we will see in the future when that cycle comes again.

I agree with OP's point of view.
The government of El Salvador was quick to pass the bitcoin law as legal tender.
The population was not educated as OP says, planning would have to be done.
Now El Salvador has invested in some valuable assets ready to be used by Salvadorans and they are not used.
The opposition party to the Nayib government also does its bit by boycotting with marches and protests against bitcoin.
According to statistics, remittances continue to be received by the usual means in the nation of El Salvador.
I think that the government of El Salvador will be creating new strategies so that the population knows with certainty the benefits that bitcoin can offer them.

And what, in fact, they tried to achieve by introducing bitcoin as legal tender in El Salvador. Having a good means of payment is still a small part of the solution to the problem of poverty in the country. First of all, goods should be created in the country, high-quality services should be offered, and the country's economy as a whole should develop. It will stimulate the collection of taxes, increase social payments through it, and so on. Indeed, Bukele started the reforms from the wrong end. By itself, the introduction of bitcoin could not lead to a rise in the economy. But only after that bitcoin can help society.

I had seen in the google,most search one of bitcoin was first place to the El Salvadorian people.Because the government had force the people to make use of the bitcoin.The people will not accept the things by the force,it was the just a better to give a option.Because they need to use it for the while and come to know the prose and con of the system.Forcing will not help for the better results.

I think where it all went wrong is when the El Salvadorian government forced the public to use Bitcoin as legal tender. If their approach was rather to give the people the "choice" to do it, it would have received more support. Then the government gave them a Free $30 in their wallet as an incentive if they opened a new wallet... and that was seen as a bribe. 

You win the public's favor if you give them the perception that they have a choice in any situation ..... so when you force someone to do something, you trigger a angry response. (Which could be seen with the riots in the early days after the announcement)

I hope other government that are planning to do this, will learn from the El Salvadorian government mistakes.