Topic: El Salvador has become the first country to make #Bitcoin legal tender! 🇸🇻 - page 3. (Read 42227 times)

Yep, they do.

Almost immediately after the Tether and Bitfinex decisions, which are written about above in this topic, the country, as I suspect through the efforts of the Bitcoin Office, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert, continues to see an influx of investment into the IT cluster.

For example, just now the Salvadoran financial technology company Ditobanx and the digital asset company Tokeni also announced their decision to invest $300 million in assets in El Salvador and plan to do so in 2025.

The companies say that the investment will be aimed at helping the country create a standardized structure for tokenized regulated assets.

 According to Guillermo Contreras, CEO of Ditobanx, the launch of these assets is necessary for the future of the entire tokenized asset industry and will not be easy, but with this investment, the company intends to establish these related services in El Salvador. He also noted that such standardization “is necessary to create a more connected, liquid and innovative market, and we are committed to making this vision a reality for El Salvador and beyond.”

I doubt that you have provided facts or logic to support your assertion that any kind of embracing of Tether or providing of alliances with Tether or acknowledgement from El Salvador that Tether can provide  its headquarters in El Salvador rises to any kind of meaningful "moving away" from bitcoin as you are alleging.  It seems that El Salvador should be completely capable of continuing forward with their varioous bitcoin-related endeavors and allowing, permitting and/or embracing Tether to come and create their company headquarters in El Salvador.  These do not seems to be one or the other kinds of zero sum game plays as you seem to be wanting to argue such a seemingly lame and/or ill supported (lacking  in facts and logic) kind of position. 


I will let my various earlier responses speak for themselves, to the extent that various personal attacks might have had been justifiably weaved into my pointing out of your seeming ongoing disgenuinness in raising your various quasi-retarded claims that are lacking in both facts and/or logic while you had been striving to get me (and potentially other members) to provide evidence and logic to back up a position contrary to your lame-ass dumb positions, which surely is not even close to required since your lame-ass, baseless and potentially purposefully disingenuine arguments are hardly even worthy of discussing. 

Sure, you are free to believe whatever dumb shit that you like, and you are also free to deny that you are the one who failed to support your nonsense and likely justifying that you receive personal attacks due to the seemingly high level of your dumbness and disingenuineness in your continuing to want to propagate such lame and baseless arguments..  If you want  to be treated more seriously then maybe you need to provide better claims and to back them up a wee bit moar better?


I have trouble considering how Satoshi could have had been being deceptive in the various ways that he might have had anticipated bitcoin to have had been scaling or any abilities that might have existed to resolve some of the growth (scaling) issues in advance.  Even when on chain fees go up, there can be questions regarding the causes, and there can be questions regarding the extent to which some other solutions are being built or can be used as alternative ways to transact. 

Surely the most expensive of transactions are still able to go through on L1 bitcoin and can even be financially justified, so surely when fees go up, then the lower value transactions are the ones that are getting squeezed, and most likely if bitcoin continues to have fee based incentives, then it is likely going to continue to become more and more expensive to transact on L1, and surely many of us likely realize that all transactions do not have to take place on L1, yet at the same time, we also know that the on boarding or even building of bitcoin stashes and investments for people with lower incomes can become locked out of having their own UTXOs, and surely the solutions are likely going to continue to be ongoing in regards to the various ways that L2 or L3 transactions are going to end up being resolved back to L1 and also surely questions regarding the extent to which the L2 or L3 transactions are sufficient pegged to bitcoin versus potentially no longer being bitcoin or even devolving into some kind of shitcoin that is merely feigning itself to be sufficiently pegged to bitcoin when it is not.

More than 14 years after Satoshi disappeared, I am surely not claiming to know the answers to the various scaling questions, and I doubt that Satoshi was deceiving in terms of his realizing that bitcoin was likely going to have various scaling challenges that might not be specifically resolvable in advance.


Yes.  The level of the dumb shit you say may well be attributed to your wanting to market your shitcoin..   Too bad, and so sad that your contribution is not taking off as you expected.  Perhaps if you figured out ways to align yourself a wee bit better with the success of bitcoin, then you might find that you might have growth in your project too... perhaps?  I have my doubts about your ability to even create any kind of legitimate project, especially when you are framing your project as a competitor to bitcoin.

 

There is no need to remember  bitcoin with fondness of the past, since bitcoin is continuing to grown and will continue to grow.

Sure, there is still going to be a bitcoin history, and various parts of history that will be remembered more fondly than others, yet I see no reason to speculate bitcoin as if it were anything other but an ongoingly growing phenomena with greater and greater building and also more and more powerful network effects, so in that regard, if you have any product, you should be striving to figure out ways to plug yourself into bitcoin...

Perhaps a bit of an ironic thing is that you are seeing yourself (and your project) as a competitor to both Bitcoin and Tether, yet it seems quite likely that both Bitcoin and Tether are kicking your ass and will continue to kick your ass if you cannot consider some ways to build your own time, energies and values in alliance with the winners instead of continuing to try to proclaim that you are offering some kind of a superior product, when there is no evidence and/or logic to really establish the points that you seem to be trying to promote.  In other words, it seems that you would be way better off to figure out ways to jump on either the bitcoin or the tether train, rather than ongoingly fighting them.

Suffice it to say that your experience is... unusual. Most credit card transactions take less than a few seconds for instance.



Nobody forgot the contributions of IBM Mainframes either, and in fact they are still in use today. Early adopters of those systems did really well because they were on the forefront of the computer revolution and then the internet revolution. Bitcoin will always be remembered in El Salvador as the catalyst to get them a more advanced financial system.

You're 'original point' was almost too stupid for words.  It would be like saying that S. Africa has abandoned gold because they allowed some massive Canadian mining company to operate a gypsum mine on their territory.


I don't.

A quick look seems to indicate that you are a fan of (and maybe the only person aware of) some ho-hum shitcoin amoung the thousands:  'Legiteum'?  Probably 'LeSHITeum' would be more fitting.  Possibly you are the founder because I don't think anyone would hire such a ridiculous clown if they wanted to have a positive impact on their effort.

 El Salvador Will not move on and forget Bitcoin, because they know what they have achieved from Bitcoin over some years before they made it legal tender in their country and also be the first country in the whole world to make Bitcoin legal tender. Adding Tether to their Bitcoin doesn't mean El Salvador is running away from Bitcoin or avoiding Bitcoin, because they don't want to depend on only decentralized currency in case anything bad happen to Bitcoin in the nearest future, it will not make them feel disappointed. I think, you have make your point clear now for people to understand, because El Salvador will not abandon Bitcoin for any other cryptocurrencies which we have seen many projects Bitcoin has brought to the government of El Salvador that will give their upcoming generation to continue to support Bitcoin in their country.

A few months ago I managed to get some of my 'old money' out of my bank in the US to buy a new car.  (I just want to spend some of it before the USD collapses.)  There is no way to contact any bank persons since the only option is an old-fashioned telephone call and usually one waits an hour then the bank's automated system hangs up on one and overseas long distance rates are outrageous.  The bank switched over to 'Zelle' after I left, so wires are no long available, and Zelle demands a U.S. _CELL_ phone number before one can even start to try to use them.  The number must be from a contract phone which I cannot even get without going back to the U.S. as best I can tell.  If you try to use a paid number they detect it and cancel you.  Thankfully I had some old-time paper checks so I was able to move some money to a foreign bank although it took many trips to the bank and about 3 weeks of time.

So, yeah, I could 'get used to' 30 min and $30 rather easily when I have to use L1 BTC which is rare since L2 BTC works great and solves the possible future problems which we have been promised by 'experts' were 'weeks away' for a decade.

I've been arguing for a decade that L1 bitcoin sucks as an 'exchange' currency and probably was never intended to be used as such.  To the degree that 'Satoshi' might have advocated it, he was probably being a bit deceptive in order to obtain mindshare back in the early days.  As I and others argued, L2, when developed, would resolve these issues while bolstering L1 Bitcoin instead of destroying it or compromising the original principles.

My side won the 'blocksize wars', and exactly what we predicted would happen did in fact happen.  All the thousands of boo-hoo-ing shit-coiners can do now is to spew fud and spam and hope that they can fool the segment of the masses who are to lazy or stupid to understand things with word-salad bullshit.  Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

My original point was that El Salvador's latest move embracing Tether, when they have previously been so focused on Bitcoin, is a sign that they are looking for other solutions that Bitcoin cannot address, even though Bitcoin is literally written into the law there. And insofar as El Salvador is looking past Bitcoin and instead to a competitor, this is a negative development for Bitcoin.

I think this is a very defensible point, and given that the only response has been... personal attacks, I would say that the point has held up quite well.

You are the only one full of shit.

1) bitcoin did not have a monopoly in El Salvador

2) I never claimed that Tether was shit... or a shitcoin, even though I did agree with you that Tether has some problems.

You are the one who seems unable to figure out what point you were wanting to make, if anything beyond trying to foment confusion and perhaps striving to derail our discusssion here.


What a drama queen you are.

Bitcoin is a very new asset class, and it is quite tiny in its size,  and in spite of its tininess, bitcoin has been eating the lunch of the world's monies and the world's assets.

Bitcoin made a lot of progress in a very short time, and it is quite likely that there are going to continue to be battles about bitcoin, yet bitcoin will continue to eat the lunch of assets and currencies, since bitcoin is the soundest of money known to man, and value will continue to flow into bitcoin for years and years and years, in spite of likely battles along the way. 

there are a lot of places that value is inefficiently being held, and bitcoin will suck up that value since bitcoin is a much better place to store value, including  that bitcoin has the other various monetary properties superior to any other assets and/or currencies.. including but not limited to its scarcity, divisibility, transportability, its verifiability and the ability to use it without permission and taking away various rent seekers and also those who are imposing unnecessary costs and other obstacles.


You seem to just love making up shit and making up categories so that you can create drama, have arguments with yourself and even win in your own creation of arguments - even where no drama likely exists.  Perhaps at least you have coins, but not easy to figure that part out since you seem to be waffling all over the place in terms of what you are arguing about in the first place.

@JayJuanGee -- You are really losing it, dude. You need to calm down.

All I am saying is that El Salvador looking at non-Bitcoin currencies, and thus breaking Bitcoin's monopoly there, is an indication that Bitcoin doesn't do everything El Salvador needs, which is a clear, concrete indicator that non-Bitcoin currencies have a place in the world, and thus they are not "shit" as you keep calling them.

And insofar as Bitcoin has competitors that are not "shit", that means... Bitcoin has competitors--and serious ones.

Some people love Bitcoin so so much that the very idea of there being another non-Bitcoin currency in the world makes them go ballistic. People here on the forums call those people, "Bitcoin maximalists" or, "Bitcoin maxis" for short. I get loving Bitcoin, but... this seems a bit narrow in thinking to me.

Apparently it's narrow thinking to the government leadership in El Salvador, too.

If you are convoluting your understanding of bitcoin and you really don't know what bitcoin is, then perhaps you might not understand the difference between bitcoin and tether.... even though you already stated that you understand bitcoin to be decentralized and tether is not.. .. so whatever non-understanding you are purporting to have seems to be on purpose....

In other words, can you really be that dumb, or are you just being dumb on purpose?

Regarding the difference between Toyota and Nissan, they are two car companies from Japan.  So they seem to be very similar.  You seem to be the one with the problem if you believe that Bitcoin and Tether are that closely related to one another. 

Maybe I can provide some hints?  For example, Tether purposefully attempts to peg its value to the dollar.  Bitcoin does not do that. 

Bitcoin has a largely pre-established issuance schedule in which there can be some variance in regards to how much processing power might be necessary to increase odds for success in receiving bitcoin's block reward every 10 minutes (approximately), and the difficulty for guessing in terms of processing power (and hashing power) is adjusted based on every 2016 blocks (approximately every two weeks), so that if blocks are being guessed faster on average than every 10 minutes, then the difficulty is made more difficult, and if they are being guessed slower than every 10 minutes, then the difficulty is made easier.  Tether does not have an issuance that is even closely to being rigorous and decentralized like bitcoins, and not that I am going to claim to understand exactly how Tether determines to issue or not issue new coins, even though as I mentioned earlier they try to back their coins, and surely it is disputed from time to time regarding the extent to which Tether's coins are actually backed by dollars, bitcoin and/or other assets, even though Tether does some times provide some information and explanations regarding their practices and how they might change their practices from time to time based on their own determinations.. or maybe they are influenced by some outside powers from time to time too.. I wouldn't claim to know  too many details.


I don't need any evidence.  You were the one making the outrageous claims, so likely you are the one who needs to provide both evidence and arguments to support your lame ass non-sense.  The mere fact that I respond to you does not shift any burden onto me to rebutt your baloney non-backed up assertions with my own evidence, when you did not provide shit for either evidence and or logic for your nonsense in the first place.

That is what disingenuine full-of-shit trolls like you do.  Come to the thread, fill it with a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense, and then attempt to proclaim that the burden is on others to provide evidence to show that you are wrong.. when you are just spouting out bullshit in the first place.  If you want tyour bullshit to be believed, you are the one who should be providing both evidence and logic to support your pie in the sky and almost exclusively fantasized claims.


Yes.  I  referred to bitcoin's growth in terms of price and other network effects, so fuck off with your lame ass attempts to narrow down the various ways that bitcoin is growing.

And, sure you don't need to believe it, and sure you can have fun fucking around with your credit cards or your digits in the bank or whatever it is that you are proclaiming to be a better place to hold your value.


Why?  There are various ways that you can measure bitcoin's growth whether looking at BTC spot price as a proxy or the 200-WMA.  You could also look at transactions being carried out (such as here), or you could just look at every 10 minutes bitcoin processed another block.  Tick, tock, next block.  Bitcoin does not need to change in order to improve, since there is value in just continuing to exist, even though what I already mentioned is also changes for the better.. that show ongoing growth... and there are more, but I have no obligation to show you, especially if you seem to largely be a purposefully blind and disingenuine twat.  You are not even trying to engage in any kind of honest and/or meaningful discussion related to bitcoin or even related to bitcoin in El Salvador.


Nope.  I am not going to do it... Sorry.. You do your own homework. 

Perhaps if you really were interested in considering various aspects of how convoluted, vacuous and made up are the  various fiat debt systems, then you might be able to learn quite a bit from one of Robert Breedlove's December 2021 interviews with Jeff Snider, in which they discuss quit a bit how so many fiat shenanigans are frequently taking place in regards to how many financial accountants are just making shit up.. and ongoingly creating money out of thin air. You can choose for yourself how much you want to live in a fantasy and just act as if fiat monetary systems are actually backed up in meaningful ways that empower individuals.. not that you would give any shits about individuals having any kind of financial self-sovereignty, right?


It sounds like you have everything figured out, and you can determine that if transactions are not done on chain, then they are not  sufficiently bitcoin?  Again, you seem to just be making up your own parameters so that you can strike it down, which is called arguing strawman's if you had not heard of such a fallacy that you are engaged in a fantasy argument with yourself, which surely is easier to  win if you just make up your own definitions regarding what counts and what doesn't count.


So?  You believe that bitcoin has to take over all transactions and to be onchain transactions for bitcoin to be successful or to have legitimate purposes or reasons for being or the adding of value to society?, and it seems that you are making up numbers too in regards to what are typical transactions or what might be eligible transactions to the extent that transactions even matter in terms of getting into specifics, since  I would conjecture that there are likely plenty of transactions that are more than $100 or more than $1k that would be more than eligible to be done either on bitcoin directly or perhaps on some second or third layer of bitcoin that (for some seemingly opportunistic reasons) you proclaim to believe that second and third layer bitcoin transactions do not count since they are not really true bitcoin blah blah blah... 


When I mentioned the $30 batching.. I am talking about bitcoin.. so maybe you don''t even know how to send transactions on bitcoin or to coin control or to send transactions to multiple recipients, and the fee does not go up because the transaction goes by the weight size of the data, an the data weight does not increase by including additional recipients.
 

You can believe whatever you like.  I doubt that whatever you perceive El Salvador to be doing in regards to its creating alliances with Tether is as bad or dramatic as you seem to be wanting to make it out to be, and like I said I am having difficulties believing you since you have already shown yourself to be quite prone to exaggeration and making shit up.


You seem to be the one who is hysterical, and you are even admitting that you are describing some speculation that you have way down the road that may or may not end up materializing, and at the same time you haven't been providing any meaningful evidence or logic to support your largely unsubstantiated opinionated claims.  If that is not hysterical, then that should still rise to the level of exaggerating.


You seem to be allowing the dweeb @legiteum to distract you.

legiteum is largely just trolling this thread with his nonsense talking points to proclaim that El Salvador is losing its way since it is creating alliances with Tether and also considering to welcome Tether to put its headquarters in El Salvador.. to the extent that Tether's headquarter location matters in regards to El Salvador continuing to follow its various ongoing bitcoin initiatives within the country...

Whether Tether is a shitcoin or not seems almost besides the point, even though one of Tether's main uses cases is that it is a kind of coin that it is largely pegged to the dollar - and I doubt that it is accurate to blanketly proclaim tether is a shitcoin or that tether is layer 2 or layer 3 since it seems to be providing a fiat onboarding layer, and sure it may well have it's own various issue, yet Tether is not bitcoin and bitcoin is not tether, so the mere fact that there are overlaps and or allegiances seem to just be a distracting sidepoint in whch legiteum is seeming to want to derail aspects of this thread with his ongoing drama, exaggerations, unsubstantiated talking points and even misinformation that comes from failing to back up his various seemingly nonsense talking points with facts and/or logic.

If you are confused, I guess that legiteum has been successful in his aims for mischief.


Even if there was fun at various points along the way, I doubt that bitcoin was ever a joke in terms of what it was attempting to achieve in relation to various El Salvador - related ambitions.

This is their reality, it all started like a joke with them, today see where they are in Bitcoin.

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele has ambitious goal of having a Bitcoin node at every home, as per senior BTC adviser to Bukele Max Keiser.
https://coingape.com/el-salvador-crypto-news-president-bukele-plans-bitcoin-nodes-in-every-home/

El Salvador's Bitcoin node initiative by the President Bukele is to improve and promote it's financial access and inclusion ,also economic decentralization.
The president aim this year is to transform El Salvador into a full-grown BTC country, and that is why he sees it necessary of having a BTC node in every home to enable him achieve his plan.
Bukele is well focused and calculative in his Bitcoin achievement, remember he was the first president to make Bitcoin a legal tender, which he has seen how important and beneficial it has been to the country's economy and adopting BTC has helped the country reduce their debt.
Since he has seen the tremendous change BTC adoption has brought to his country, he now want to improve accessibility, empowering more people to safely and effectively engage in the crypto economy, thereby taking the country to the next level, thereby making El Salvador as a haven for crypto firms.

This is more confusing here in the lately discussion I am seeing. Bitcoin and Tether coins are not related in any form. Probably there is a typo because I know very well that J.J.G will not relate bitcoin with any other shitcoin. He is well grounded with bitcoin. Bitcoin uses L1 while Tether uses L2. Though I am not following up this thread like that and I have not heard from any news that El Salvador is intended in Tether. And let me.come to the course of discussion. El Salvador adoption of bitcoin is for the development of the country.

Huh? Like saying Toyota doesn't need Nissan to be successful. That makes no sense.

There are all kinds of ways to transact onchain bitcoin and through second or third layers, so sure some of the details are still being worked out, including that bitcoin is not about buying coffee.
[/quote]

L2s are not Bitcoin. L2s are what you Bitcoin maxis would call a "shitcoin" because it's not... Bitcoin, and you call anything that isn't Bitcoin a "shitcoin".



Absolutely. But 99.99% of the world's daily transactions are not $1000 or even $100.


Interesting idea. What centralized, non-Bitcoin system would you use to make these transactions?


I never said they were. I only said that their moving to other products--and breaking Bitcoin's monopoly--is a bad long-term sign for Bitcoin. That doesn't mean anything will happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, or that Bitcoin's price will crash in the next year, or even anything, since there are a lot of factors in any product's success in the market. But El Salvador bring in other non-Bitcoin currencies is not a positive development for Bitcoin. There might be other factors that overcome this one, but that factor itself is negative.

You really don't need to be so hysterical...

x.com

President Bukele has also emphasized again the country's public confidence in Bitcoin. Especially after the US government supported Bitcoin, his country earned more than 300 million in profits and he dreams of making more profits in the future.

In Bukele's view, since the world's richest and most powerful country has supported Bitcoin, other countries will also show great interest in adopting Bitcoin. That is why he considers 2025 to be an important year for Bitcoin. Those who can hold Bitcoin during this time will be able to see an incredible success.

When Salvador invested in 2021, there was no Bitcoin ETF approved. At that time, there was no BlackRock. People did not have such a far-reaching idea about Bitcoin. Moreover, no announcement has been made by the US government to make Bitcoin a reserve currency. But with time, Bitcoin has become very necessary for everyone. Now everyone will accept Bitcoin for their own needs. Due to which the value of Bitcoin will continue to increase.

In the meantime, his country has found a profit of more than 300 million, Even those who opposed it have now calmed down. He also said that his country has been able to buy Bitcoin at a comparatively lower price, and the common people have now realized that he was right. Those who will delay buying Bitcoin now will have to buy Bitcoin at a higher price.

What's "bizarre" is that it's been months that you keep spreading the same FUD all over the forum, while it's been perpetually explained to you that this is false. An L2 of Bitcoin uses the same currency, and secures that in case of any party needing to return to L1 can do it permissionlessly. That's why it's called a Layer 2, and not an IOU.

Yes.  Tether is not bitcoin.  Bitcoin is amonst the most if not the most decentralized kind of a money/protocol that is currently in existence.

Tether is one of the means to potentially interface with some fiat systems and shitcoin systems and perhaps other systems.. Bitcoin does not need tether to be successful for bitcoin to be successful, even though surely tether can continue to serve as one possible interface option.

I don't claim to know all things about these kinds of matters, yet if you are making various false equivalencies and acting like you don't understand why it is a good idea for El Salvador to be welcoming (or to form alliances) with Tether, then you seem to be purposefully wanting to overly simplify matters and just create (propagate) your own various false and/or misleading narratives.  

For what purpose?, maybe ONLY you know why you want to chime into these matters as if you give any shits.  If you don't like bitcoin then why you hanging out talking about how terrible it is, within your supposed view.... Just don't participate or maybe you want to short it.  Good luck shorting it, you will need such luck because that seems like a real losing strategy, even though you seem to be talking about bitcoin as if it were on some kind of a downward and non-stoppable spiral.


Seems to me that bitcoin continues to grow in so many, if not all seven of the network effects described by Trace Mayer.  Also reflected in BTC's price growth and also the fact that [urlhttps://bitcoindata.science/withdrawal-strategy]the 200-WMA never goes negative[/url].  It is an upward trajectory since 2012 (let's say start to measure the 200-WMA 4 years after bitcoin launched - even though it might be more accurate to start to measure teh 200-WMA since about 2014 - 4 years after bitcoin had its first market price).

There has been plenty of development on bitcoin too.. so seem to be purposefully blind if you are ignoring obvious facts or acting like you don't know anything.


You are really playing dumb.

Fiat institutions relate to various confusing and convoluted monetary systems that are inexistence in relation to the dollar and various other fiat systems, and sure a lot of fiat systems are based on debt relations, so bitcoin is much more solid because it is sound money that fiat systems are going to try to corrupt by debt systems, yet it is harder to corrupt bitcoin based on various aspects of how it was built in terms of transparency, limited supply and so when there are a lot of systems to rehypothicated bitcoin, those rehypotheicated bitcoin are going to have to get resolved on the bitcoin blockchain, so if status quo banks, governments financial institutions, or status quo rich folks try to fuck around claiming that they have bitcoin that they don't have, then they likely are going to end up getting themselves into situations of either lost credibility or inabilities to operate within systems that don't allow them to make shit up as easily.. sure. they will try, and they may even get away with some attempts to pervert bitcoin, so we still have to figure out how bitcoin is going to survive within a lot of these various currently existing unfair and corrupted systems that frequently don't even have valid accounting.

Bitcoin is not just used to transfer value, you disingenuine twat.  Are you even trying to make some potentially valid criticisms and concerns about bitcoin and/or how it might relate to some of the monetary systems that are currently in existence?  


There are all kinds of ways to transact onchain bitcoin and through second or third layers, so sure some of the details are still being worked out, including that bitcoin is not about buying coffee.

Might anyone consider that there is a certain amount of power to be able to transact without a 3rd party intermediary verifying if I can, and to whom, and asking me other questions about my transaction and cannot stop me from doing it.  That already exists on bitcoin and it is quite powerful for people still learning about it and learning how to use it and learning how to incorporate it into whether they are transacting or even holding their coins privately, to the extent that people are not holding their coins through 3rd parties, and surely there is still quite a few folks holding coins through 3rd parties and merely using bitcoin to get price exposure rather than being able to identify that bitcoin get's a lot of its power through abilities top directly interact without any 3rd parties intervening in the transaction.


You seem to be making shit up.  By the way, if it costs me $30 to do a transaction for $1k.. that might cost a lot, yet if I am making the same transaction, and maybe I send one transaction for $1 million or for $10 million or for $100 million, but it does not matter for the size, so then $30 seems like a pretty good deal for a larger transaction.  I can also batch my transaction and if the transaction is coming from one sending address, it could be going to  5 or maybe 35 or maybe 100 or maybe even 1,000 or more different destinations, and the amounts for the recipients might vary.  Some of the recipients might receive a few dollars and other $100s of dollars and others $1,000s, and $10s of thousands, and maybe I have a few transactions for a $million. It would still cost me $30 since I was sending  them from the same starting address.  There could be some use cases for that, no?


Seems like you are either making shit up or exaggerating.  El Salvador is not giving up on bitcoin.  They are continuing to build, continuing to teach and continuing to develop.  Didn't you see the nodes in every house article in this thread that seems to contradict your misleading proclamations about El Salvador supposedly giving up on bitcoin. Not easy to take someone like you seriously..


Sure there is a war on cash, but cash is still being used all over the world.  If there is a debate, then it is ONLY in regards to why you would be proclaiming that cash no longer exists, when that is not true.


I was largely just highlighting that you were not making genuine arguments.

I am sure that many folks recognize privacy and convenience benefits of physical cash, especially when there have also been demonstrations of how digital money is used to trace transactions and at the same time, governments and financial institutions seem to be wanting to move more in the direction of wanting to control people more and more and more.  So yeah the control angle is becoming more and more perceived and many normal people are becoming bothered by some of these kinds of control matters.. yet they are probably even more bothered if they are finding that their purchasing power is going down, even if they might be working harder and longer, so there can be a lot of things that bother regular people and may well motivate them to want to have various options in regards to how they might store their value or how they might transact, and sometimes there will be trade-offs that become more noticeable, yet what those tradeoffs might be are going to vary from time to time and based on various things that might be happening that might draw attention to how much things cost or how much people pay in transaction fees or perhaps whether their money is holding any of its value.

Regarding the traceability of bitcoin, it is not static, an there are various kinds of systems being developed, and sure if we are transacting through 3rd parties that require KYC, then that would not be as private as compared with being able to transact without KYC or perhaps there could be minimal kinds of KYC to the extent KYC is even required in the first place.  The main thing required in a transaction would likely be whether the value being transacted is real or not and/of if it is what is claimed to be.. So if I go to the store, I want to verify that I am getting a quality product (and I have various ways to attempt to judge that), and the vender wants to make sure when I give him $128 (even if it is received in bitcoin or some other currency) that the value that I am transmitting is accurate and valid at the time that I transact it.  Now whether he has to convert into something else might have costs or if he is going to keep the value in the thing that I send, then he probably wants some assurance that it is going to sufficiently hold its value between the time that he receives it and he might resolve if he is going to hold the value in that asset (if it were bitcoin) or if he might convert it to dollars or some other fiat or some other way that he might want to hold the value.

Yes, it's good business. Better business than them trying to foist Bitcoin transactions on their citizens, which are extremely expensive and extremely slow.




L2 BTC (esp, lighting) is about all people use at the street and vendor level (e.g., Walmart) use because it works so well.  Of course people who don't want the exposure to Bitcoin's voletility can and do use Tether.  Personal choice which nobody has a problem with...and a good illustration of why some people get rich (e.g., Bitcoiners) and others not so much (e.g., Shitcoiners).

[/quote]

So you don't have a "problem" with other people's choices, but you still call them "shit". Fascinating.



Um... Tether is not Bitcoin. It is a completely different network, and like most non-Bitcoin currencies it is defacto centralized.



Yes, Bitcoin is not getting "weaker" anymore than a 1987 IBM mainframe is any "weaker" than it was the day it was purchased.

And Bitcoin hasn't changed for years, and there are no plans to do so, nor does anybody want it to change. What are you talking about?



What are "fiat institutions"? Why would any financial institution especially care about what mechanism they use to transfer value?


Yes, people need to "get used to" transactions taking up to 30 minutes to transact, and cost up to $30.

In my opinion, nobody is going to "get used to" that. Bitcoin is absolutely inappropriate for 99.99% of the world's transactions.



El Salvador has admitted that Bitcoin can't handle it's needs, so it is starting to use alternatives. This is a bad sign for the future of Bitcoin. There is no sugar-coating this.


It's not anybody's dream, it's just fact. I don't see why it's even up to debate.


Going cashless doesn't necessarily mean being non-private (although using Bitcoin makes you trackable, but that's another subject).

And physical cash is controlled and tracked in all kinds of ways, and has been for decades, so I'm really not seeing what the point is here...

Of course, Tether is and has been  related with bitcoin since at least around 2014, and for sure it is not bitcoin directly, but it has been involved in various bitcoin related battles and facilitating some of the on and off ramps related to bitcoin. 

Tether is a pretty amazing company in several ways.. a very small company.. largely private, in some legal battles,.. potentially coopted in some ways by status quo institutions/governments, yet still being a bit of a thorn in the side, at the same time.


You sound lost @legiteum.  Bitcoin is a protocol that is still getting built upon in a large number of ways that may or may not make sense, and at the same time, bitcoin is not getting any weaker even if you might not agree with some of the directions that it is being built - and/or it does not fit into some kind of convenient way of your wanting to frame it.

I am not going to claim to know everything about what bitcoin is or what bitcoin isn't, yet it seems that bitcoin is continuing to grow in all parts of the world, and various relationships (alliances) are forming, some of those alliances relate to various legacy systems, some alliances relate to shitcoins and some alliances we might not exactly know how to characterize what they  are and where they might be going.  Some folks are fighting bitcoin and some are supporting bitcoin, yet it is also not always clear which is which, yet in the meantime on a personal level if you are fucking around anticipating that bitcoin is some kind of a passing fad, and  you have not figured out your own personal position to invest time, energy and/or resources into it, then perhaps you will continue to seem lost like some kind of a low coiner, no coiner and/or non invested person looking at bitcoin from the outside yet continuing to be ignorant in regards to what you believe is bitcoin and what is happening in and around bitcoin.


Your overall assessment seems correct, in that bitcoin is going to eat the dollar's lunch and also eat the lunch of all of the various fiats, yet at the same time it could take 50-200 years for that lunch eating to play out.

Do you think that the dollar or other various fiat institutions are going to go down (or get transitioned) without any kind of a fight? 

There are so many folks still trying to figure out which side to be on or if they should hedge in both worlds, and even the world's population are less than 1% who hold much if any BTC. 

Yeah there are some companies really starting to push bitcoin, and some individuals who got decently large stacks of bitcoin early, yet it is going to take many years for bitcoin to get adopted by the public in broader ways...

Bitcoin cannot just take over the dollar without systems building and people getting used to it.


You sound determined to have fun staying poor... hahahahaha

Let's see how that works out your suggestion that you are going to stay a no coiner (or are you going to at least hedge as a low coiner, just in case it (referring to bitcoin) catches on?).


legiteum seems to be spreading confusion.. perhaps on purpose.

Sure, tether is going to El Salvador, yet that does not mean that Tether is replacing bitcoin, even though tether could provide some transactional and interaction options.

Tether has been buying a lot of USA treasuries lately in order to show that they are backed up by dollars, yet it is not exactly clear how tether is investing itself in a lot of ways, including it is one of the company building its bitcoin treasuries too.

For sure, Tether likely considers El Salvador as a bitcoin friendly district, and Tether has historically been quite sympathetic to many bitcoin financial sovereignty kinds of objectives, yet at the same time they seem to appreciate that El Salvador does not have a bitcoin hostile environment.. at least for the time being El Salvador is both bitcoin friendly but also trying to attract big industry that is tech and/or bitcoin and/or information-sector friendly.

In regards to legiteum's assertion that cash is disappearing, he is correct, yet largely seems to be just spouting out some central banker wet dream ideas about the supposed disappearance of cash..  even though surely there are a lot of efforts all over the world for people to become more and more cashless.. and yeah, if everyone could be tracked and their spending and/or money could be controlled that would also be great... .. so each of us do have to be careful about those kinds of developments an not assume that we lost the privacy battle in regards to phsysical cash too, as legiteum would like to presume to be the already deteriorated status of the world.

It's good business which will bring in a lot of workers and money.  It's about that simple.  Tether is a friend to the USD.  Whether El Salvador will collect data for the international banking powers through mandates on businesses operating at the pleasure of their government remains to be seen.


L2 BTC (esp, lighting) is about all people use at the street and vendor level (e.g., Walmart) use because it works so well.  Of course people who don't want the exposure to Bitcoin's voletility can and do use Tether.  Personal choice which nobody has a problem with...and a good illustration of why some people get rich (e.g., Bitcoiners) and others not so much (e.g., Shitcoiners).

L2 absolutely, positively IS Bitcoin.  It's pegged out of the Bitcoin Blockchain one-to-one and verifiably so.  Properly implemented wallets are also non-custodial so the individual user can peg in or out at their discretion without permission.  Of course and exchange can refuse to perform the operation but one can just go to an exchange who will perform the operation.

Contrast this with Tether who has had years-long struggles to prove to both the people and the courts that they are in fact solvent.


In the case of Tether, nobody has a problem with anyone using it.  Nobody (who knows anything about it) will shed to many tears when a shit-coiner gets burnt.  It happens all the time and will continue to happen until the earth stops cooling.  Not saying it will happen with Tether, but if it did I would not be terribly surprised.

As for El Salvador, I'm telling them right here.  The people who have invested 'over a trillion dollars in these assets' have 'over a trillion dollars' to invest.  They didn't 'earn' it working at a car wash.  Goes back to my statement above about why El Salvador, and any sensible country who has the magnetic attraction to do so, would welcome a piece of that pie.