Great strawman. Neither have I said that it will "save" anything, nor have I spoken of radical economic change.
Lol, do you even know what a strawman argument is?
I asked you one simple question, you made a statement, you said those countries have "most to gain" from this movie, and of course out of curiosity I asked you what they have to gain? Since when is a question a strawmen argument?
And no, I don't feel like having a debate with you that doesn't look like it would be a calm one.
Lame attempt to weasel your way out of this but I wasn't looking for a debate either, I was just asking a simple question, debates are made with people who can actually say something meaningful about something or post real data, not just two lines of this will be great cause decentralization.
All those are poor nations from Africa, Central, and South America. With or without Bitcoin, that won't change. The effects would be similar to when the Central African Republic adopted Bitcoin. It didn't do anything good. It is just a different payment method that people without electricity, internet, computers, and phones should now be using somehow. Nothing good can come out of forcing people to use Bitcoin. That transition should come natural and that's the only healthy way.
People are tending to forget that bitcoin's design is great for personal finances, the whole be your bank to the third party and other advantages are simply of no interest for a nation. What would all these poor counties have to gain from adopting, nothing on macro-level other than after a few years begging richer countries to buy their bitcoins at higher prices t make a profit. I find it amusing how the same enthusiasm happened when Salvador adopted it, now that we talk about Salvador facing a default later this year everyone says that Bitcoin or not Bitocin the country was anyhow doomed, then what will change with even poorer countries who's citizen can't afford even a 5sat/b transaction a day?