Topic: The adoption of Bitcoin in poor countries: a source of conflict? - page 3. (Read 655 times)

There will be no conflict at all.

Even they accept Bitcoin, there's no guarantee they will buy Bitcoin because they're "poor", means they don't have enough money to buy Bitcoin. There would be a news where robbery steal someone cell phone in order to get Bitcoin, but this problem not cause by Bitcoin since anything that valuable always bring someone to steal/get it.

Accept or not, it doesn't really change anything.

When you say tensions with established financial systems, do you mean the US dollar?

We all know that many poor countries depend or rely on USA a lot and they are almost at beck and call of USA. Will adopting bitcoin be almost like a betrayal to other currencies? No. Adoption does not mean it will completely replace other fiat currencies just yet.

But it can certainly help the citizens of these developing countries to economically benefit from adoption of bitcoin. I am sure that the government can use bitcoin to invest in and have additional funds to be used in maintaining and improving the country.

The adoption of Bitcoin by poorer countries could mean a lot of financial independence, but perhaps new challenges, too. For countries struggling with unstable currencies and high inflation, such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe, Bitcoin has been one way to secure citizen wealth outside of traditional, volatile systems. In this respect, it is its potential to boost financial inclusion by slashing the cost of transactions most relevant wherever access to banking is limited. However, its volatility and lack of worldwide standards for regulation make it impossible for any nation to rely on Bitcoin today as a major currency without putting its economy in jeopardy. In fact, other countries such as El Salvador, which have legally established Bitcoin as legal tender, are already suffering from mixed economic outcomes due to Bitcoin's difficulties.

Still, there might be a fight with big financial powers in cases where some poor country adopted Bitcoin, as you mentioned. In more major economies, such as those of the U.S. and the EU, there is suspicion about giving away financial authority to decentralized currencies. Until then, perhaps Bitcoin could fit as an asset in supplement in countries which do not have sound financial systems rather than being a replacement for their national currencies.

I don't see a reason why the adoption of Bitcoin can results in conflicts between different countries especially the underdeveloped poor countries, but rather it's adoption will emerge the country to be independent and enjoy freedom like you said and it's a better priveledge for them. So it's of great advantages to poor countries adopting Bitcoin as a legal tender cause it'll definitely boost their financial state but tho the country may experience conflicts  within them especially with the government trying to decide on it's usage and adoption but aside that they'll eventually have peace.

I agree.
It can help in theory, but each case is different and wouldn't be solved the same in each country.
BTC should be adopted to the problems it - should - solve in each case, because it wouldn't be a magic wand of sorts.

There may be conflicts indeed, but not of a military nature, but via financial pressures.

The IMF has pressured El Salvador to abandon its pro-Bitcoin policy. It wasn't successful in El Salvador's case, because the country was financially relatively stable, and even if it had accessed some IMF loans they weren't in risk of defaulting. But a heavily indebted country with a weak economy, like the poorest African and Asian countries or Haiti, could succumb to this kind of pressure if the default risk is too high.

I agree here, but a pro-Bitcoin strategy for a poor country is a big challenge. And it depends on the type of country we're talking about.

A small country with low population (less than 10 million) could adopt El Salvador's model: a pro-Bitcoin policy in such a country which attracts investments from the outside, or manages to create a thriving regional industry hub with Bitcoin/crypto startups and service providers, could already make a difference for the local economy.

In a larger country, let's say from Cameroon's or Ghana's size on, however, it's more difficult to directly benefit as even a relatively large crypto sector would only raise the GDP by a tiny percentage. If the banking sector is very underdeveloped and only a small fraction have bank accounts, then there are indeed chances the population could benefit by financial inclusion. But in larger countries often already some reasonable fiat-based fintech services like M-PESA exist.

So the question is which problem should be solved. If it's inflation, I think there are chances with a Bitcoin-positive strategy because one could lower the demand for foreign currencies; this for example worked a bit in Argentina - people bought USDT instead of the dollar, reducing the demand for the USD proper and reducing pressure on the exchange rate. But you have to take into account that this has to be accompanied by a strategy which keeps the fiat supply in line with demand, e.g. resist the temptation to "print" too much money.

Has there ever been a case of a country being sanctioned because they recognize Bitcoin as a means of payment? I also don't think countries will wage wars because of this. If the goal is to force countries to stop using Bitcoin they don't have to launch missiles to do that, just ban their export activities or something similar. This may lead to indirect internal conflict if their situation is that poor, but I don't think the key issue lies in whether Bitcoin is being used as money or not. They need to fix their education issues, inflation issues, etc. Using Bitcoin is not going to magically remove all of that to begin with. CMIIW.

I agree, using bitcoin as currency in poor countries won't cause any conflicts but it won't solve any problems for them, it won't help them reduce transaction fees or help people escape inflation like OP said. Using bitcoin as an investment can bring more benefits, but it is not without barriers because investing in bitcoin requires money, while where will the poor get money to invest? Also, investing in bitcoin does not guarantee profits, not everyone can make profits just by investing, it requires proper planning and strategy. But at least it creates opportunities for those who know how to seize them to have a chance to escape poverty.

Conflicts are possible among citizens, government vs citizens, and government vs governments.

Governments can create their educational centers on Bitcoin for their citizens. I don't say such attempts from governments are bad, but if people can use Bitcoin for payments, they have access to Internet. That means they don't have to rely on educational resources from governments to learn about Bitcoin.

There are many available educational resources on Bitcoin, and free. Governments are unreliable and I don't trust their educational resources on Bitcoin.

People as citizens will make big mistakes by believing in governments and learn from governments. If they use close source Bitcoin wallet softwares built by governments, it's terrible mistake as they must always remember reasons to use Bitcoin, to be their own banks, and free from government control.

Reminder: do not keep your money in online accounts

Conflict between citizens or conflict with other countries? because both are different.
However, the use of Bitcoin as a means of payment will not cause conflict unless the government of the country does not first provide knowledge about Bitcoin so that its citizens will make many mistakes when making transactions with Bitcoin.
It takes knowledge to be able to use Bitcoin as a means of payment because this is a new technology that certainly many people do not understand, especially from poor countries where they have limited access to the internet, while conflict with other countries I think will not happen because all countries have the right on what they want to do in their own country.

It is better if the adoption of Bitcoin in poor countries to be as an investment than a means of payment. We know Bitcoin can be the best investment as many people prove it by making a big profit. So when people in poor countries can saving their money in Bitcoin, they can accumulates it for some years and sell it when Bitcoin price in a high price.

They can use Bitcoin as a payment but they already have fiat money. Besides that, their government needs to accepted Bitcoin as a payment which I am not sure they can do that easily.

And if they can use Bitcoin as an investment, they can have more money as a profit from Bitcoin investment.

They can use that profit to survives in the hard situation that can coming anytime.

Democracy must exist in their nation by internal infrastructures and components, not from other countries.

They can change and improve their national economy. If they have bad economy, it's their problems that are not from other countries.

If El Salvador can make Bitcoin legal tender, any small nation can do the same if their government leader wants to do it and gets enough support from other politicians in their Congress. I say this in a nation with democracy, not dictatorship because under a dictator leader, big decision for a nation can be made by a single person, the dictator.

I don't think so, you can just use bitcoin as the secondary legal tender and everything will be fine. also, allowing bitcoin for investment will give more opportunity to the people.
moreover, bitcoin can be used for people as a settlement for payment of working overseas remotely like freelancing and so on. so they are not limited by the complexity and can find better opportunity else where which preferable abroad with better pay wages.
in my understanding, if people can easily find opportunity for them to make a living or even making them financially better, there will be less conflict, most of conflict always stems from poverty where poor people finding dead end and they just want better living environment.

No, adoption of Bitcoin in even poor countries won't cause much conflict, I know if suddenly Bitcoin losses value during the bear market then many of the citizens of those poor countries would not use it as a payment method and consider fiat superior to it but it won't cause any conflicts.

There's some chance that corrupt politicians of the poor countries then might use Bitcoin to hide traces of their corruption or the ones who are against Bitcoin might show that something like that could happen but still even that won't be cause of any conflicts directly.

Most of those poor countries are poor due to lack of education. The rate of illiteracy is very high on such countries. Hence, they don't know what true democracy is and they all pretend to be happy with what freedom they have. Now do you think these people will be able to use bitcoin? Even if they did, they would most likely be using a custodial centralized wallet to make transaction. In that case, they will still lose their financial freedom because those wallets will still be controlled by the government. And transactions with bitcoin wont be cheap for them. I doubt any people from those poor country will be willing to spend 40 cents to make a single transaction.
This is applicable for every country in the world.

 

There will never be a conflict in the first place if only the government has good intentions, and truly wants the citizens to key into Bitcoin and benefit from it. But In countries (I assume), the reverse is always the case. El Salvador has always been our reference point since Bitcoin was made a legal tender over there. I haven't heard of any casualties to their financial system, but rather, it's either you hear that they've purchased a certain amount, or they've acquired some amount from mining through volcanic geothermal energy.


And, we don't even see how much they print into circulation daily, but we feel it's effect as time goes bye. They are quite upset that Bitcoin is the opposite of the financial system that the country operates. Transparency is just a big deal to them.

Nobody believes that they have democracy. Maybe the ruling politicians say that mantra, but in reality it's not even close and the citizens are certainly aware of it. As you can see, both are trying harder to ban Bitcoin because it represents the opposite of the regime implemented by the government.
Free management of your money, cheap transactions without banks as intermediaries and simple income from abroad... Everything that an undemocratic regime does not want its citizens to have.

I don't think it is. Bitcoin adoption is meant to give us freedom from the government and banks and be with our own bank. If a country aims to increase financial stability and financial freedom of its people, then it wouldn't create any conflict. Only the greedy people sitting in the government make it as an issue, but for a poor country that is lead by an open-minded leader, bitcoin becomes an asset and an opportunity, not a threat.

It's crazy how many countries are indebted to great countries like China, Russia, the United States, and Great Britain. One way or the other they have to pick a side when conflicts arise. It's either they are followers of the country they are indebted to or they face another side. This happens to only countries that keep getting loans from these big countries. I heard news of many African countries who take loans from the China government. And such loans can be so difficult to pay back. Only one way they can pay back than to be a slave to the country they owe indirectly.


Bitcoin was meant to bring financial freedom and not to enslave any country whether they are poor or not. And it is one main reason why Satoshi made it more decentralized because if it was controlled by any government entities surely there would be conflict and disagreement between countries in power and lower countries. Right now, I cannot imagine any conflict happening because no country has full authority over Bitcoin. And every citizen in a country has the right to choose if they want to make transactions with Bitcoin even in countries where it is not legal. There are still a lot of Bitcoin users.

Of course. I don’t think anti-bitcoin countries would go to war with another country just because they chose to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender. El Salvador and Central African Republic adopted Bitcoin as legal tender years ago, I haven’t seen missiles flying into their country airspace neither have their relations with other countries dwindled since.