Topic: El Salvador has become the first country to make #Bitcoin legal tender! 🇸🇻 - page 96. (Read 38876 times)

You are the one who had made a claim.  I did not make any claims except to suggest that your claims may well have a bit more persuasive power if they had an actual source(s) besides "found on internet."  

Of course, you do not really need to provide sources if you do not want, but then your claims may well have little to no persuasive power if they either depend on facts or some kind of analysis of facts that you had not provided.

What are you wanting me to provide sources for?  What claims did I make and fail/refuse to adequately back up?

By the way, I don't even recall disagreeing with you in any kind of meaningful way, yet... but yeah, if you want to argue about things for the mere sake of it, then surely I might feel up to it.. I don't want to get too far ahead of myself.. gotta give you a bit of a chance first, no?  You have not said too many things that were outrageously dumb - only just a little dumb so far.. besides your seeming to show tinges of wanting to insist that you are the smartest in the room.. . .. but sure.. it's possible that I could be reading you wrongedly.. just barely getting to know uie-pooie.

Sure, prove me wrong then.
Cite your sources. I am waiting. You can write paragraphs all day long. It still won't change the reality in your favour lol

Last time I checked, proclaiming that you found something on the internet does not give that information credibility merely because someone on the internet said something with which you agree and believe to be true - instead you should name your source, in order that there might be some abilities to attempt to figure out what kinds of sources that your source might have (if any) for their factual assertions, instead of just making up purported facts.. .which sometimes happens and is even more likely to happen if we get into habits of not even trying to figure out the sources of information that any of us rely upon when we are wanting to make arguments or to verify which arguments we are more inclined to agree.

Yes, technologically there might be difficulties in verifying which transactions might be attributable to El Salvador and then whether some of the transactions might be done on the main chain or over lightning network or a combination of various ways that bitcoin transactions might be carried out on the base layer or on second and/or third layers.. and sure the further out, the more likely that there are going to be centralized dependency points that are not exactly the same as bitcoin, even though the values might get resolved on the main bitcoin layer from time to time... and for sure, I think that any of us should be skeptical regarding claims that transactions are being made and sometimes we cannot really verify the truth of the matter or even if we might be being mislead in one way or another regarding how closely the transactions (and interactions) are related to bitcoin or pegged back to bitcoin or even sufficiently collateralized if they happen to be further out on the layers and really no longer bitcoin transactions. 

I personally wonder about how some of the monetization matters work in terms of services like Strike..what are the costs of transactions and who's paying for the costs (and at some point are there interactions with legacy systems), so is the whole systems what it claims to be and are various aspects sustainable and backed up by adequate collateral too.  Sure if there is some system that is being built, then maybe it does not need to be profitable and/or sustainable right away, but surely we need to be skeptical if there is some system that ends up being like Luna/Terra/ DoKwon (scammer dweeb) that is using bitcoin in one way or another, but then really not even sufficiently backed up by collateral or has various centralized points of failure - while holding itself out and claiming that it does not.. Those can end up being tragic failures and then have some system wide negative ramifications when those systems end up failing and then causing folks to either sell a lot of BTC or lose confidence in BTC which may end up contributing to further cascading negative affects on BTC... Regular BTC holders do not likely appreciate when those kinds of systematic events happen and seem to contribute to the lessening of the BTC price (and even lessening of the perceived value of BTC).

I don't have any problem in terms of some of the skepticism that might exist in regards to what is bitcoin and what is not and what is sufficiently backed / or pegged to bitcoin and which is not, and we should be skeptical. but at the same time, if there are assertions that we are all being duped, then those seem to need to have some basis rather than just failing/refusing to actually look into which aspects of the transactions can be shown.. because there is some evidence that exists to actually show various base layer bitcoin transactions and even a variety of ways to measure lighting network transactions too (transaction volume and number of nodes).


That would suck.  I hope that BTC spot price going down to $12k and failure/refusal to recover does not happen. 

With BTC prices bouncing down in the $19,200 to $19,600 today (and as I type this post), we are already bouncing around with BTC prices that are approaching 15% below the 200-week moving average (which is currently just below $22,600), and the 200-week moving average has historically been a pretty strong BTC bottom price indicator bitcoinlandia.... so for sure, there are many BTC HODLers who are already nervous about such ongoing low BTC prices over the past several weeks - and even a lot of the fall out since early May has been quite a challenge to the BTC spot price, too.

In early to mid-May, BTC prices fell below the 100-week moving average - which was then at $35k - and then more and more bad news regarding some of the level of gambling that had been taking place by some others who had then expected the BTC price not to go below certain prices (including but not limited to falling below the 200-week moving average that first happened about month ago, around June 12) and thereafter contributing towards more and more cascading falling of BTC prices.


Of course, we have a variety of wallets that are available and a variety of ways that bitcoin transactions are being done in El Salvador and other places.  I would not proclaim to have had studied the details of the matter - and I do understand that there are some possible centralized points that could contribute to various kinds of failures and even ways that folks are being mislead about either how transactions are being made and the extent to which people have options.

We do know that people do have options, but at the same time, it is quite likely that some newbies might  end up getting stuck using various kinds of custodial services, and surely some of them will also learn how to hold their own coins at the same time, and we know that holding your own coins is a preferable way of attempting to protect yourself on a personal level..  and even if there might end up being some systematic risks that come through various unknown third-party custody risks, then those might be valid concerns - even though they do not validate the case for bitcoin and they even justify why more and more user-friendly self-custody systems should be built and used..   Surely there are going to be some losers in this whole process too, and some of those are likely attributable to some of the growing pains of ongoing development and early stages in bitcoin. .which can also be considered as exciting times, too..

I didn’t mean be to be disrespectful, but the volatility will lessen over time as it grows in market cap, one day it could be a way more stable currency and actually be useful to price things in it. For now in practice it doesn’t matter as we’re still pricing things in fiat anyways and businesses can simply convert without any volatility drawbacks. The real gain might be the option for people to have a currency that’s promising to be saved in the long term, and that many people would have the access to a kind of banking app, even if it’s centralized, as they can switch to decentralized alternatives from there.

This wasn’t the reason and i never called you stupid, the cringe thing is that you accuse Naybib Bukele of not grasping basic concepts, when you’re the one who doesn’t grasp some basic things. Also El Salvador uses LN, it doesnt matter if just chivo does not, as you can still use LN everywhere.

This is the cringe part again, as you would have ever trusted a state wallet to be truly trustworthy. And youre talking about all of El Salvador, even tho it’s just an app and people there can use any alternative they want. If they wanna bank people with this app and the state is a central entity anyways, that could never be trusted to have the authority over a „decentralised“ app, they might as well go the centralized route and be honest about it and more efficient at it. This app is built for fiat and bitcoin after all. Also if you’re not running your own lightning node, idk how you would consider it decentralized in the first place, this is a custodial solution from a centralized entity and you’re expecting decentralization and talking about Bitcoins philosophy, from a product that could never deliver it and isn’t supposed to deliver it.

Because El Salvador doesn't have its own traditional currency, the government of El Salvador is making it a little easier to adopt Bitcoin as legal and being able to use Bitcoin as legal tender in the El Salvador environment itself and I think that's a very also good for El Salvador and its citizens. After all, Nayib Bukele, who already loves Bitcoin, is always more patient when he sees Bitcoin falling in price and is also still trying to buy it at a low price like now.

Sure dude. Keep on bargaining. From calling me cringe and stupid because apparently according to you El salvador was using LN,  to defending El salvador for using a centralized app(they are not even using bitcoin lol but something which is exact opposite of bitcoin's philosophy and smearing its name).
You are delusional. Take your meds.

I prefer utilizing my time somewhere lese rather than discussing something with a disrespectful 12 y/o kid with zero undertanding about economics.

They spent 2% of their government spending on Bitcoin last year. Is this gambling?

Then they tried, but it doesn’t matter as Bitcoin is legal tender now and they have to keep the trust fund. These 2% would have been spent anyways, what else would have been more promising economically?

Then i dont get your point, any state wallet couldnt be trusted as decentralized, so they might as well use a centralized approach that fits their needs better. If people can still use any lightning wallet, then what is the shocking thing? We’re all also still using bank accounts even tho it’s centralized and untrustworthy.

What else did I say in my post?
Read twice before you comment.

You can still use any lightning wallet, that is the point. Even if chivo doesn’t do it apparently.

The merchants can convert to usd right away trough chivo, maybe thats why did they did it.

I am not talking about profit or loss and I am also not saying that taking risks in bitcoin is bad if done properly. I am saying that it will not look very good if El Salvador goes into an economic crisis while their president has boasted on social media of buying bitcoin dips which only go lower. Also, the cheers from the community on a president who is using taxpayer's money to buy a risk asset is head shaking. What if bitcoin falls to $12,000? What if it does not recover?

Sure dude. Maybe do a google search before you act so cocky on the internet then it will be less humiliating for you?lol

Tell me a time when it wasn’t like this?

The only person looking stupid here is you. Will you tell a poor person to fix their finances by just not spending money and doing nothing? This won’t work when there’s not enough money coming in, in the first place.

It takes work and investments to better things, especially if this country lacks in all areas. If they’re getting hate from people like you, means they’re probably doing things right.

He didn’t even take any risks, for the 1000th time, the Bitcoin El Salvador is holding are not at risk and serve a purpose, because they need to convert between different currencies, that’s why they’re using a trust fund.

Fix what? Do you see anything about fixing El Salvadors finances in the specifications of Bitcoin? Before you open your mouth, think of solutions, your crying wont advance anyone and we both know that you’re not interested in El Salvadors well-being, but spreading fud about Bitcoin adoption.

How much money was used and for which purpose?

How would relying only on the dollar would have bettered the situation for El Salvador in a recession?


Sure, this must be the real reason why they’re suggesting this and creating a stable financial system must be an easy task in a poor country that is plagued by corruption.

So why does it work?

It won’t be volatile forever, but this problem is fixed now by accounting in usd and just converting right away in daily commerce, that’s why they put up a trust fund to do exactly this. Volatility will also work in your favour when you’re holding long term, there’s no advantage into saving into currency that is set in falling in value. People should understand money first when they talk about these things, Bitcoin isn’t used as a unit of account yet and that’s fine, the volatility problem doesn’t matter when you don’t account in Bitcoin and convert right away. Bitcoin will be way more stable in the future when the market cap matures, and then it can be used as a unit of account easily too.

Also as long as the dollar circulates it will probably be used for daily commerce, as this is what greshams law suggest. When we come to the point where the bad money(dollar) will have lost too much value, then Bitcoin will take over in daily circulation, this is what thiers law suggest. Everything we’re seeing so far is completely expected and in accordance with economics.

Fail, how? It won’t.

Cringe. You’re the person here who doesn’t grasp basic concepts and can’t think further than 5 minutes.

They’re not using the main chain. You can use any lightning wallet and their state wallet uses lightning too, to my knowledge.

You have the wrong idea about how bitcoin is being used there. They are still using USD as the base currency.
This is why IMF suggested El salvador to not use bitcoin but instead work on creating a stable financial system.

Bitcoin's role isn't to work as a currency for a nation. It will fail due to its volatile nature.
It could never work, even if everyone(somehow magically) started transacting with bitcoin then the network will simple fail.

Bitcoin wasn't made for this. Maybe lightning network or a new L2 solution similar to LN. But it still won't solve the problem of volatility.

Imagine a leader of a sovereign country failing to grasp such basic concepts.

If he had used BTC LN instead, then it could have been a different story. I wouldn't be pissed either because that would be the correct adoption.

Whatever your view may be on the Bitcoin adoption by El Salvador president the fact remains that El Salvador citizens now have a legal decentralized digital currency, that is serving as an alternative to the United States dollars. This to me means that the president is smart enough to take the financial power off the string of our dollars and peg it on a decentralized currency like Bitcoin, and if you look closely the president's decision to adopt Bitcoin as a legal tender is the best financial diversification and over-concentration of the country economy on the United States dollars since El Salvador does not have it own traditional currency.

This is what happens when a country gets a daft leader with no understanding of the ground reality.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/07/11/el-salvador-forced-citizens-use-bitcoin-what-happened/
Without paywall https://archive.ph/e4587


I don't know why the bitcoin community continues to support this idiot, you guys are playing into his hands.

And I have been saying this for a long time now

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5404746
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60547517
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60502685
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60488527

Since none of us know the future in advance, the mere fact that an investment goes down rather than up does not mean it was a bad investment at the time that it was made or that there should be any meaningful change in the practice down the road.. including potentially keeping on dollar cost averaging, buying on dips and lump sum investing over many years and even across administrations. 

Of course, with politics there frequently are goals to get friendly administrations elected in subsequent terms in order that previous investments/policies can continue to be followed, so of course, there are no guarantees that future administrations will be bitcoin friendly in their policies, practices and investments.

The idea of hedging is like an insurance for a variety of possibilities, so something that serves as a hedge (such as bitcoin) might not have gone up but it still served as an insurance.  There are theories that seem to have a decent amount of factual support in which bitcoin is amongst the best of hedge investments because it seems to be a non-correlated asset... Sure folks make claims that bitcoin is correlated to various macro assets, but in the longer term that does not seem to be the case.

Depending how bitcoin price going on for several years later? will be as gambling what did by president Bukele because he don't give positive impact with investing on bitcoin and price keep going down at the future, just speculation if bitcoin price at the future keep on the lower price than with first time price invested by El Savador president. I think become weakness because how much fund invested in bitcoin could use for other needed and become as capital for El Savador how to give their country with productive economic. All contrast side with Bukele will made it as black campaign on the next presidential election because he was failed give profit with how much money waste by investing in bitcoin.

FTFY.. your last sentence... at least provided another interpretation.. your sentence was not bad.. just want another angle to the sentence.

Governments do not have an obligation to get everything perfect so long as they are making reasonable efforts to represent the interests of the people.. and surely some governments do better than others and some do not even seem to try to represent the interests of the people beyond mere lip service.

Investment is about profit and loss but it is far from gambling. A new research by JP Morgan Chase & Co. stated that U.S. wealth has plunged by $5 trillion in 2022, down from $13 trillion to $8 trillion; mostly from a sour stock market, that’s the risk of investing. The government of my state used tax payer’s money and invested over 100 million Dollars on a monorail project and the investment partners withdrew from the projects and it became a wasted fund. That project when completed would have increase the internal generated revenue of the state. We know government is accountable to the people; hence they must use the state resources prudently. But if government must invest, they must also bear the risk. El Salvador government has chosen to invest in Bitcoin, haters should give them time to prove that it is not a bad decision. Bitcoin might not be the best investment, but is one of the best options.