Owning or using bitcoins does not require mining. Anyone that can use M-pesa can also use Bitcoin.
The question was in what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation. What does Bitcoin offer them that M-pesa doesn't? I've travelled extensively in both countries and I can assure you that they will want to know how Bitcoin helps them feed their children and stops them dying of malaria. What is the incentive for making the switch? The same question can be asked the world over. Look at what happened in 2008. We're still living with that, yet there has not been a mass transition from fiat to Bitcoin. Could it be that this mass transition has not happened (and will never happen) because Bitcoin has nothing to offer people in terms of real change?
Obviously, you know the answer to your own question. You know exactly how Bitcoin differs from M-pesa. You are implying that Bitcoin is no better. Whatever. It is different. Bitcoin doesn't cure malaria. That doesn't mean that it has no benefits.
A bitcoin miner does not hold, loan, or transfer money. It validates transactions.
I should have added, in the sense that bitcoin are created by the process of 'mining' bitcoin. In the Bitcoin universe, the process of bitcoin 'mining' is analogous to the function of central banks and private banks re: the creation of 'bank credit money'.
Money creation is just a side-effect of mining, and every four years it becomes less significant than before.
"Mining" is just a metaphor. There is no actual mining of bitcoins.
Of course, because Bitcoin is 'virtual' money. It is not merely a metaphor though, because Bitcoin 'miners' have to invest CPU cycles and electricity in order to find a random nonce and be rewarded with new bitcoin. They are in this sense 'prospecting' for bitcoin. So in what way is Bitcoin not a mining simulation?
The economics of Bitcoin mining are very different from the economics of mining of resources such and gold or oil or whatever.
Bitcoin is 100% transparent. You can be sure that transactions have not been manipulated or forged because the all of the information is publicly verifiable.
I could say the same thing about the transactions that appear in my online bank account. If a fraudulent transaction appears then it appears because someone else has obtained my details, in the same way someone else can obtain a private key if it's not properly secured. So, do you think that 'trust' can
only be established via the "sanctity of the global ledger"? Can trust be established by decree or with a few lines of code? If I were to tell you that someone is trustworthy and present you with a few lines of code as 'proof of trust' then would you take my word for it? Or would you want to interact with that person and draw your own conclusion?
You have a balance in an account at a bank, but you don't know if that balance actually exists or not. Bitcoin is verifiable by anyone. It is not the code that provide the proof. It is the data in the ledger
No monetary system can be without flaws because value is subjective. Furthermore, money isn't value, it just represents value.
I wasn't asking if Bitcoin is flawless but whether Bitcoin replicates existing flaws. See my reply above re: M-pesa There are billions of people on this planet surviving on $10 per day or less - 71% of the world population according to one study. What is the 'purpose' of Bitcoin in relation to these people? Does it do anything whatsoever to address their situation? If not, then is Bitcoin any different than fiat?
You are implying that Bitcoin is the same as fiat because it supposedly doesn't provide a solution to a particular group of people. I would like to see the logic behind that.