Time to go for this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3zlHx3ajQk
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
517 points (98.0% liked)
World News
32994 readers
1109 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I generally keep out of crypto discussions as I do not sufficiently understand it. But this event is very easy to understand. In the beginning of the article itself:
... approved last Wednesday a confusing reform to the Bitcoin Law at the request of Bukele’s government, which had no other option to receive the $1.4 billion credit agreed in December with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Thus, this move was forced on El Salvador by the IMF.
“Forced” is doing a lot of work here. I think it was El Salvador that decided it was worth to ditch btc in favor of getting actual rescue money.
Edit: it makes sense that Bukele just told Rubio they’d be happy to be the US’ offshore prison system. Seems they really need the money.
I had a Libertarian try to tell me that this was going to revitalize El Salvador just a couple of weeks ago, lmao.
Not the greatest idea to transition to a currency where every single transaction requires the same amount of energy to power a mansion for a week.
Not promoting just saying that this is misinformation. Transactions are done in bulk and on the lightning network at a tiny fraction of what you suggest.
Edit: BTC itself can only process 8 or so transactions per second(hence the high energy demand per transaction), the actual number of monetary lightening network transactions (grouped up into a these large BTC transactions) is close to a million.
Didn't know it was that bad. Knew it was bad, but that's depressingly bad.
It’s absolutely bonkers to me that Libertarians think BTC is a better option that fiat bills.
This shit has the have been astroturfed or otherwise psyop’d.
Well their reserves doubled in value
Who could have predicted this
Why isn't this being discussed on any of the crypto subreddits? This is all I could find. Somebody's not telling the truth:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1ihd9ek/el_salvador_buys_11_more_bitcoin_boosting/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1iflbk5/the_satoshi_statue_has_arrived_in_el_salvador_en/
Mods are probably preemptively blacklisting this article and similar articles to avoid inconvenient information reaching the cryptobros. From a cursory glance, both of those subs seem pretty overwhelmingly biased towards being pro-crypto.
It would hurt their feefees
the buttcoin sub is decent
Bitcoin isn't good for making little purchases, firstly because it takes so long to get confirmations, if each block is 10 minutes and you need like 3 blocks to consider it confirmed that's 30 minutes. But that ties into the second issue which is that you probably don't want millions of tiny transactions on the Blockchain, you want them processed off-chain and then settled in bulk (to the Blockchain) periodically as a single transaction.
Finally someone who knows what theyre talking about, with an actual valid criticism.
Bitcoin is great for little transactions if you use the lightning network. Sending on the lightning network means instant payments with no confirmation required and absolutely tiny fees. And the only thing that shows up on the blockchain is the transactions to initially start using lightning network and to take your coins back off the lightning network. Transactions made over the lightning network aren't recorded anywhere other than maybe by the people transacting.
"Bitcoin is great if you don't use the block chain"
That's what you just said. So why even use it in the first place?
the lightning network still uses the blockchain, just less. it's acts like an immutable public bar tab you can't default on. once you have spent enough with another person that it is worth them conducting the transaction on chain then it does it. usually when fees are low too.
That is an extremely simplified explanation of how it works though, it is more complex than that.
Edit: another analogy i have just read is it's like cashing in at a casino. you put some money in the house (the blockchain) and get some chips, you go in and transact with loads of people, then when it's advantageous you can cash out and get your BTC on chain; to the house that is two transactions, cash in and then out, rather than a transaction for everyone you exchanged with on the network. that's probs a better analogy than the bar tab one... but again, oversimplified
bar tab is more accurate, casino is easier to understand.
the actual functionality doesn't really matter to the layperson though. basically, you put some of your bitcoin on the network (minimum amounts apply), and then you can spend that with very fast transactions and low fees. when you're ready you can send what you have back to the chain
Stil though, how well does that work with a rapidly fluctuating value of the bitcoin? Prices would have to be superfluid for external good to have known value of some sort.
Stability of the value of savings and currency seems crucial to using it for trade.
It'll settle eventually
load more comments
(10 replies)
i got back into bitcoin recently and decided to move the contents of my old wallet to a new SegWit one and look into using lightning.
To open a lightning channel i have to stake £170 up front though which is crazy, how are people in poorer countries supposed to do that?
or even here. poverty is on the rise, a lot of people are living hand to mouth and just having that kind of money lying around isnt a thing.
i like the idea of bitcoin but i worry it doesn't scale well.
Add to that that virtually nowhere accepts it. The value of bitcoin comes from its use as a currency. if it doesn't have that then it's entirely speculation.
oh well, i have £2k in there and i'm not turning it back into fiat. I'll spend it if i can or ride it all the way to 0 if that's the way it goes
edit: if BTC does hit $1m a coin as the hodlers hope then that would amount to $2000 to open a lightning channel (or more realistically $2400 as electrum wouldnt let me open a channel with the supposed minimum 0.002 BTC, i had to make it 0.0024). I hope that the minimum amount to open a channel will be updated long before that happens though, but i guess we'll see
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Bitcoin has gone up by at least 40k in the last three months, surely that must have made El Salvador a few pretty pennies.
It has but bukele's bitcoin fund is still a drop in the bucket compared to their GDP. I'm seeing they own 6,055 bitcoins, which is about 600 million dollars, to their GDP which is 34 billion.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Looking forward to them establishing monero as a legal tender
The only surprise here is that they stuck with it for as long as they did.
Let's not get astray here.
The reason El Salvador stopped using Bitcoin as a legal tender is not because it's some sort of failed experiment (it had issues, but still), but due to continuous pressure of IMF interested in maintaining a US dollar-centric economy.
El Salvador is reliant on US dollars in its economy, which puts it under heavy US influence. Knowing Salvadoran currency wouldn't be strong, Nayib Bukele suggested an alternative option - risky, volatile, but free from pressure of other countries and strongly appreciating in the long run. IMF didn't like it, and that's where we are.
So, when you cheer Bitcoin not being legal tender anymore, you also cheer US and IMF projecting power over the country.
Its even funnier. They just straight up promised them a billion dollar loan on the condition that they abandon bitcoin.
In December, the government struck a $1.4 billion loan deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that scaled back its bitcoin embrace after the lender urged officials to limit its exposure. The lender specifically advocated making acceptance of bitcoin voluntary for the private sector, which is spelled out in the hastily-approved law.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Well, also, they just cut a deal with Marco Rubio to be America’s prison, so they must’ve figured that was more lucrative than Bitcoin and continuing to agitate the US by challenging the dollar was creating unnecessary friction.
Exactly. The title is misleading af
They were forced to stop using Bitcoin as legal tender by external parties. The question people should be asking is why? And the answer is not that it was a failed experiment.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The IMF wouldn't give them a credit unless they stopped forcing people to accept Bitcoin as payment, which almost no one was using anyway.
officials ensure that the government will continue betting on this cryptocurrency, whose price currently exceeds $100,000.
I think that's why El Salvador is dropping it. They never really forced people to use Bitcoin, US Dollar was also the legal tender and unlike Bitcoin, also the money of account.
But really though, can you call for IMF to stop lending to countries which buy Bitcoin using state funds when the issuer of Dollars, the U.S. has a President who has run multiple crypto/NFT scams and wants to use Government money to pump up crypto prices?
load more comments
(1 replies)
i remember laughing at crypto nerds about this a few years ago, but who's laughing now?
me, still
load more comments
(34 replies)
The government, she assured, will continue buying bitcoin and having reserves in this cryptocurrency. According to the National Bitcoin Office, El Salvador has 6,050 bitcoins worth $634.8 million. “President Bukele continues buying bitcoin, we have a Bitcoin Office, we have the Bitcoin Law, bitcoin can be used in El Salvador.
They're going to have the US by the balls like Saudi Arabia when bitcoin crosses $1mm/coin
load more comments
(6 replies)
view more: next ›