Topic: Should El Salvador Fork Bitcoin? (Read 335 times)

my friend i said centralized because the government can print the money via contract just like usdt or usdc that have control of their stable coin in other way decentralized is they need to deploy in publick blockchain so anyone can really know what happen who is burning who is minting the token.

They way you said DAI seems the best and usdt and usdc seems scam, but do you understand that dai is backed by two of what you are saying scam  



Here you read the article https://blockworks.co/news/coinbase-looking-to-acquire-1-6b-of-makerdaos-usdc

 "MakerDAO is the largest single USDC holder.

The stablecoin makes up 35% of dai’s collateral, roughly $4.8 billion. "

I don't think this will work because in the first place you will get a new coin different from bitcoin as a result of the fork such as bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold or other forks.
People simply did not accept these coins generated from these forks as the original Bitcoin.

So El Salvador can succeed in creating its own Bitcoin but I don't think it will be accepted globally, it will only be accepted within El Salvador.

Also, if other countries accepted Bitcoin and then each created its own fork, what would we get? We will get several more worthless coins.
This is not what everyone wants, we want to reach a state where the original Bitcoin (as created by Satoshi) is accepted globally as the main method of payment.

All central banks of almost all countries (except a handful like El Salvador that don't have their own national currency) are already doing that when they print their local fiat (eg. FED printing USD, UK printing Pound, Russia printing Ruble, etc.). Creating a new currency like CBDC is not a good idea at all unless they have a real plan otherwise it will fail like how Venezuela CBDC failed.

The best way is actually to adopt bitcoin and start some sort of regulatory body that eases bitcoin adoption in the country instead of slowing it down or pushing it underground.

When you have mention the coin is central and then said it's decentralized, you're just confuse anyone here. When it's created and controlled by single entity, it's centralized and there's no way it can be decentralized. USDC and USDT are centralized scam stable coins since they're not pegged with 100% of real USD. The only trusted decentralized stabnle coin that have a good volume is only DAI right now.

Your idea actually can be very good, but the real idea of forking bitcoin is not really good.

THe best way to the country right know is creating some sort of Central Bank Digital Currency of making their own stable digital coin so they have control and keep decentralized in some way. Like USDC or USDT

Bitcoin is an open source project and available for anyone in the world regardless of what they know about bitcoin and if they own any bitcoin or not, since it's open source anyone can fork the project and commit some changes to the project and then push it on the project he forked for the original repository of GitHub, but there is no reason for people to use this new forked bitcoin, even if the government of El Salvador for the project and start doing some changes there is no reason to see other people in the world will use that project.

I'm curious why you suddenly believe El Salvador needs to fork Bitcoin. I don't believe they need to fork Bitcoin because they fully support it and accept it as legal tender. If they require native cryptocurrency, they can create a new one without forking. How many Bitcoin forks have gained popularity? I do not see much there. If they don't like Bitcoin, they will fork it. Otherwise, it's unnecessary to me.

many countries put in some amount of value into the IMF to use as credit for loans to other countries. where by the IMF cut El salv out of the ability to get loans from IMF bank. however El salv has and does just ask for loans directly from counties, thus by passing the IMF

so not much love lost it also helps because el salv can then negotiation better deals with countries direct. and have less sanctions to obide by too

being dropped by the IMF turns out to be a good thing
el salv can instead of asking for $100m at a 2.8% rate from the IMF
with IMF mandatory repayment rules and penalties.

el salv can ask for $10m form 10 countries and trade goods/produce at a $10m per country rate of wholesale for that loan depending on what goods that country needs, where the country can the sell those goods for more then 2.8% and make even more money. meaning better for everyone

Mighty ambitions, but that's never going to work. For one thing, the IMF and world bank have already isolated El Salvador for investing in Bitcoin in the first place. Why should they isolate themselves from the bitcoin community as well? They would become like Venezuela then.

We're the only air support they got.

having a currency of their own domestically within their own borders has some local advantages of controlling their currency via their own rules which their merchants inside the country follow. it allows for things like price control.

however putting up a border wall not allowing cross currency transfer has its own disadvantages.

as for why other forks/altnets fail

its simple. they are just copies trying to offer the same services the first/main currency already offers.

BCH fails because exchanges and merchants prefer and enjoy bitcoin better and thus more people use bitcoin. thus no need for BCH to shadow bitcoin.

as for ETH, it wanted to be a network offering something completely different. but looking at how its price chart shadow traces bitcoins price wiggles(lower price bracket, but same wiggle path). it shows it doesnt really have much independent use for its own separate market demand/price discovery of a different sentimentality of differnt users.

in short its price is being held up to speculative high amounts compared to its underlying value due to bitcoin trading or arbitrage giving it a premium it does not deserve. ether changed to POS which reduced its value of acquiring coin down by 20x and so the price should have followed ethereum down. but it didnt because there is not much independent ethereum utility of its own price discovery sentiment from its own independent userbase

when altcoins dont have their own independent markets offer enough independent niche services to have its own price discovery market of differing price wiggles. the altcoin is becoming pointless need for users.

..
if el salvador needed its own independent market away from international markets . then they could fork their own "ready-to-run" CBDC but that would depend on how much their domestic userbase would use/need it

so far el salvador see the benefits of wanting to be part of international trade, but not via fiat. so staying with the international bitcoin network has all the advantages, without needing to cut all ties from international influence

So are gasoline and diesel but you can see that since they derive from the same thing, oil, and in our case trees the less demand from one would trigger enough cheap oversupply for the other, all companies that deal with that would either have to fire their staff or try to refocus their activities, supply and demand, the trees are still there, the demand for lumber is not, what are you going to do?


No, they do not.
The Central Bank of Russia can't freeze my gold, it can't print 100 billion tons if it wants, and can't shut down the gold trade.
See the differences between a nationally controlled currency and an internationally traded asset?


What would stop people in Salvador from selling their coins to these infamous Wallstreet investors?
Or do you want to put a limit to the number of coins each one is allowed to sell and to the persons he is allowed to do so?
Oh wait, but just above we were talking about incentivizing investors to buy SalvadorCoin and now we talk about restricting them, common, Hydrogen, you can do better! 


Finally!

#1.  Lumber and firewood are two completely different things. Many types of lumber contain arsenic based poisons intended to kill termites. These types of lumber cannot be burned as firewood without exposing people to arsenic fumes that could be harmful to their health. In that sense it is inaccurate to use the terms lumber and firewood interchangeably. The market value and price trends of lumber and firewood are also completely different due to these reasons.

#2.  Why would outside investors buy an el salvador based fork of bitcoin, rather than bitcoin itself? Do you really want me to answer that? Ok.

Look at current market trends for gold and silver. Central banks owning the vast majority of good and silver in the world, make it easy for them to set prices off of their high holdings and liquidity.

The same precedent applies to bitcoin. Hedge funds and large institutional speculators currently hold the majority of bitcoins and liquidity, also making it easy for them to set market prices.

If el salvador forked their own distribution of bitcoin and blocked wallstreet and hedge funds from owning a large majority of coins to influence market prices. Then perhaps you might see the potential for price trends being more reliable and stable in contrast to bitcoin's recent price history.

In short, one motive behind forking bitcoin would be to eliminate price interference caused by large speculators and institutional investors.

In practice, this could be impossible. Wallstreet and big institutional investors are the most catered to demographic in all financial and investment assets. But in terms of long term price stability, it could be necessary to avoiding some of the negative trends we have seen in recent times.

Hydrogen is what you would call a crypto maximalist, he thinks that replacing any kind of trading with a token, combined with relentlessly printing said tokens would somehow ensure prosperity, of course, this is a flawed vision but I admit in some cases it's entertaining, some are outrageous but some quite funny.


Because there is no need for them, simple as that.
That's why all forks fail, not just bitcoin forks but ETH forks and others.


What you proposed is a country spending money on subsidizing miners in the same country and then having them sell these coins to investors who would buy it... because ...why? Why would outside investors buy Salvador Bitcoin and not Bitcoin or Ghana Bitcoin or 600 West Third Street Mansfield issued by the Mansfield council in Ohio?

And if wood was a good investment, it would have been so without any token, right? So, there was no need for named token in the first place.
Second, you might want to check those prices again, lumber is taking a tumble and firewood will soon follow once things settle down and all the fear about freezing finally becomes what it was supposed to be, a debunked myth.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/lumber-prices-hit-lowest-level-since-2020-housing-market-slows-2022-12
https://www.investing.com/commodities/lumber

If you would have bought lumber in 1993, you would now have a loss, a 30 years asset that is in red hardly sounds "outperforming", what you're looking for is more speculation or, since we're talking about crypto, pump and dump behavior.

The reason why El Salvador want to accept Bitcoin as legal tender is the utility that's the Bitcoin offer! if they're Bitcoin fork, it's not Bitcoin anymore and the utility is already different. Bitcoin fork is centralized and can be manipulated, it's really against with the real Bitcoin utility, if they're don't happy with the decentralization and the fees, they wouldn't accept Bitcoin as legal tender in the first place! that's why many governments that doesn't like it prefer to create their own coins.

That would be so funny to see a country having its national currency in a centralized mutable blockchain in control of a company that the country has no jurisdiction over
Imagine if Vitalik wanted to overthrow Norwegian regime. All it takes is to roll back all his chain's blocks or freeze their national currency
I didn't even mention the Ethereum network congestion and the gigantic fees they have to pay while the network goes down because someone decided to pay some kitty game on it

Is it in some parallel universe of yours or in countries where there are no trees at all? Is firewood really such a perfect investment that you call it the next Bitcoin - maybe ask people in Africa if they think firewood is a better investment than Bitcoin?


Your predictions? Maybe the ones where you speculate that a new token should be created for every problem in the world? These aren't any financial predictions, but a bunch of nonsense that you stack on top of each other in the Economic board - and that's actually called thread spamming.

"Bridge network."

You mean a network of spoofed IP addresses? That would only work in only one direction as the IP routing would direct responses to the correct IP addresses rather than the forged ones. For that to have a chance of working they would need to spoof IP addresses then compromise internet routing to do something like a man in the middle attack to fulfill all of their crypto mining needs.

If you're referring to proxy or VPN approach, they would need a server inside el salvador to make that work. Given that el salvador is the government of the country, they should be able to prevent or restrict unwanted 3rd parties from having that access.

Long story short, its not that easy to fake IP addresses in a way which would allow them to be used for TCP handshakes and sessions, especially over the long term as would be needed for mining purposes.





I was thinking they would naturally limit IP mining to el salvador, while allowing nodes to be run by anyone globally. (Separation of nodes and mining) Or deploy a minimalist core setup, which would be easier to run on smartphones than the current bitcoin (if that were technically possible). The blockchain being formatted in a compressed format would reduce its size by roughly 1/3rd and make it easier to download.

But I didn't go that far into detail expecting most would not bother reading and simply bash it due to them not comprehending motives behind proposed changes.

Its pointless to discuss, most of the changes and improvements that could be made aren't challenging topics to tackle on a conceptual level. They're only difficult in terms of software engineering, money and time.




Why did bitcoin forks fail? Specifically why and how.

If you thought about it, you might realize the changes I proposed address said failures.

Last I checked firewood is outperforming stocks, bonds and everything else btw. I guess you're not a fan of financial predictions being proven accurate?

The OP really has incomprehensible ideas for me personally, and I think he should think carefully before presenting them in public, because sometimes it really seems like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Hasn't history taught us at least one thing - that all those who have created their own version of Bitcoin have failed or are completely worthless in every sense? Maybe El Salvador should have accepted the offer from Cardano and declared that token a legal tender in the country?

---

Hey @Hydrogen what about your idea that "fire wood and wood burning stoves" will be the next Bitcoin?

In my opinion, the main value of Bitcoin is that it is the original network, not a copy. 

Currently, there are many blockchains that are superior to the Bitcoin blockchain in terms of manufacturability and innovation (for example, the Monero blockchain). 

However, bitcoin is money.  And money (finance) is a very conservative entity.  In the field of finance, the time of uninterrupted and trouble-free functioning of a financial instrument is very important.  Bitcoin has performed very well over the past 14 years. 

Therefore, the original in the field of finance is always more valuable than a copy.

This will happen, their forked bitcoin will be useless as it will drop in value worse than Bitcoin SV, it would be stupid to have a Bitcoin that is being issued by the government and controlled by one.

Second, about the mining stuff
- they would need a centralized pool, you can't block mining gear from the source code of the coin based on IP
- Salvador is a NET importer of electricity, that's why their whole volcano mining was just a big PR lie and nobody is talking about it anymore
- Salvador is so poor it can't afford anymore to offer "incentives"

Third, putting caps on how much you can own, then putting caps on how much you can trade, then putting caps on how much you're allowed to keep, right? It is truly a marvelous idea, the only question that remains is why use bitcoin at all?

You seem very keen on the idea that somehow a country can print cheap money easily, give that money away and nothing will happen, everyone will get rich and you won't experience inflation and devaluation of the mass-produced currency. It doesn't work like that!