51–60 of 103 posts
This is the finest example of propaganda. Just look at the photo of a dude with a fire in the backdrop. 1. For most people in El Salvador Bitcoin does not matter and will not matter for quite some time. 2. "Bitcoin crashes" to a value a week or so ago. This is usually called a "correction". Even when it was crashing 80%, it was from some very short-living speculative highs and it's now trading close to all-time-high…
Unfortunate wording in the title. The price of Bitcoin "crashed" as in plummeted, and the Chivo wallet system they're trying to use in El Salvador "crashed" as in went offline. The Bitcoin network, of course, chugged merrily along, at its usual 4 or so txns/second.
who needs failure when this is what success looks like?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correction relative to what fundamental value? And what’s the difference between a speculative high and the normal price?
Hindsight? I am pretty sure that is what people are using for the definition. If the new high didn't hold, it was speculative, if it did hold and it went up further, it was its normal pricing.
>The price of Bitcoin on Tuesday crashed to its lowest in nearly a month,
The lowest value in nearly a month is "crashing?" And saying that caused the country to lose $3 million pretends they sold all the bitcoint that day.
Using a picture of protestors in front of a massive fire implies there's some huge movement, not "about 1000 protestors."
>It says bitcoin could save the country $400m a year in transaction fees on funds sent from abroad. However, using data from the World Bank and the government, the BBC calculates this to be closer to $170m.
Saving $170m is still "up to $400m" and more than anything is being optimistic about future growth. And they are saying "however they'll only save $170m" as if the move would somehow not be worth saving $170m.
Finally, they interview a random shopkeeper and the opposition leader to show we got both sides of the issue. What a fair debate there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s just another reason (along with all the others) it should never be imposed as a currency, particularly in a country with lots of people living near the poverty line. Imagine leaving home not sure if you can afford the bus ride to work or food to eat because of volatility.
But if your rent is X BTC/mo how does the BTC relation to USD change your rent or make you go hungry? A 0.0001BTC sandwitch will be 0.0001BTC tomorrow as well. What we have here is people using bitcoin as proxy for other currencies.
Unfortunate wording in the title. The price of Bitcoin "crashed" as in plummeted, and the Chivo wallet system they're trying to use in El Salvador "crashed" as in went offline. The Bitcoin network, of course, chugged merrily along, at its usual 4 or so txns/second.
Wait, is BTC really only doing 4 transactions a second? I knew it was bad, but I didn't realize this bad. Bitcoin is like a 1960s mainframe computer in an old bank headquarters that runs everything but is an archaic relic.
When the majority of the country doesn't have internet access, a "currency" that you can only transact in via the internet seems like a poor choice. It makes it a lot easier for the government to track people though given that they are getting their citizens to download the government-sponsored wallet, which I'm sure is convenient for them. My guess is that most people in El Salvador will download the wallet, get the…
If the shops have WiFi that's enough. Also, public WiFi. Still, your point stands to a certain extend, connected to your next line:
> It makes it a lot easier for the government to track people
There is indeed a danger to the democratic process here. But I don't know if the solution is to just not do crypto. I don't know what would be best.
> My guess is that most people in El Salvador will download the wallet, get their $30, and then abandon it and just continue to use USD.
My guess BTC takes off over there.
One argument critics bring in I don't understand is that Bitcoin is too volatile to be a currency. If a zoned market solely accept Bitcoin and a good costs say 1 BTC, why does it matter if the BTC-to-USD price is increasing or decreasing? For the zoned market it's still 1 BTC for said good.
Pretty interesting how the day that it become legal tender in a country, the price goes down by 10%. The more conspiracy minded would say that this was done on purpose to convince people not to use it.