Yes.  Tether is not bitcoin.  Bitcoin is amonst the most if not the most decentralized kind of a money/protocol that is currently in existence.

Tether is one of the means to potentially interface with some fiat systems and shitcoin systems and perhaps other systems.. Bitcoin does not need tether to be successful for bitcoin to be successful, even though surely tether can continue to serve as one possible interface option.

I don't claim to know all things about these kinds of matters, yet if you are making various false equivalencies and acting like you don't understand why it is a good idea for El Salvador to be welcoming (or to form alliances) with Tether, then you seem to be purposefully wanting to overly simplify matters and just create (propagate) your own various false and/or misleading narratives.  

For what purpose?, maybe ONLY you know why you want to chime into these matters as if you give any shits.  If you don't like bitcoin then why you hanging out talking about how terrible it is, within your supposed view.... Just don't participate or maybe you want to short it.  Good luck shorting it, you will need such luck because that seems like a real losing strategy, even though you seem to be talking about bitcoin as if it were on some kind of a downward and non-stoppable spiral.


Seems to me that bitcoin continues to grow in so many, if not all seven of the network effects described by Trace Mayer.  Also reflected in BTC's price growth and also the fact that [urlhttps://bitcoindata.science/withdrawal-strategy]the 200-WMA never goes negative[/url].  It is an upward trajectory since 2012 (let's say start to measure the 200-WMA 4 years after bitcoin launched - even though it might be more accurate to start to measure teh 200-WMA since about 2014 - 4 years after bitcoin had its first market price).

There has been plenty of development on bitcoin too.. so seem to be purposefully blind if you are ignoring obvious facts or acting like you don't know anything.


You are really playing dumb.

Fiat institutions relate to various confusing and convoluted monetary systems that are inexistence in relation to the dollar and various other fiat systems, and sure a lot of fiat systems are based on debt relations, so bitcoin is much more solid because it is sound money that fiat systems are going to try to corrupt by debt systems, yet it is harder to corrupt bitcoin based on various aspects of how it was built in terms of transparency, limited supply and so when there are a lot of systems to rehypothicated bitcoin, those rehypotheicated bitcoin are going to have to get resolved on the bitcoin blockchain, so if status quo banks, governments financial institutions, or status quo rich folks try to fuck around claiming that they have bitcoin that they don't have, then they likely are going to end up getting themselves into situations of either lost credibility or inabilities to operate within systems that don't allow them to make shit up as easily.. sure. they will try, and they may even get away with some attempts to pervert bitcoin, so we still have to figure out how bitcoin is going to survive within a lot of these various currently existing unfair and corrupted systems that frequently don't even have valid accounting.

Bitcoin is not just used to transfer value, you disingenuine twat.  Are you even trying to make some potentially valid criticisms and concerns about bitcoin and/or how it might relate to some of the monetary systems that are currently in existence?  


There are all kinds of ways to transact onchain bitcoin and through second or third layers, so sure some of the details are still being worked out, including that bitcoin is not about buying coffee.

Might anyone consider that there is a certain amount of power to be able to transact without a 3rd party intermediary verifying if I can, and to whom, and asking me other questions about my transaction and cannot stop me from doing it.  That already exists on bitcoin and it is quite powerful for people still learning about it and learning how to use it and learning how to incorporate it into whether they are transacting or even holding their coins privately, to the extent that people are not holding their coins through 3rd parties, and surely there is still quite a few folks holding coins through 3rd parties and merely using bitcoin to get price exposure rather than being able to identify that bitcoin get's a lot of its power through abilities top directly interact without any 3rd parties intervening in the transaction.


You seem to be making shit up.  By the way, if it costs me $30 to do a transaction for $1k.. that might cost a lot, yet if I am making the same transaction, and maybe I send one transaction for $1 million or for $10 million or for $100 million, but it does not matter for the size, so then $30 seems like a pretty good deal for a larger transaction.  I can also batch my transaction and if the transaction is coming from one sending address, it could be going to  5 or maybe 35 or maybe 100 or maybe even 1,000 or more different destinations, and the amounts for the recipients might vary.  Some of the recipients might receive a few dollars and other $100s of dollars and others $1,000s, and $10s of thousands, and maybe I have a few transactions for a $million. It would still cost me $30 since I was sending  them from the same starting address.  There could be some use cases for that, no?


Seems like you are either making shit up or exaggerating.  El Salvador is not giving up on bitcoin.  They are continuing to build, continuing to teach and continuing to develop.  Didn't you see the nodes in every house article in this thread that seems to contradict your misleading proclamations about El Salvador supposedly giving up on bitcoin. Not easy to take someone like you seriously..


Sure there is a war on cash, but cash is still being used all over the world.  If there is a debate, then it is ONLY in regards to why you would be proclaiming that cash no longer exists, when that is not true.


I was largely just highlighting that you were not making genuine arguments.

I am sure that many folks recognize privacy and convenience benefits of physical cash, especially when there have also been demonstrations of how digital money is used to trace transactions and at the same time, governments and financial institutions seem to be wanting to move more in the direction of wanting to control people more and more and more.  So yeah the control angle is becoming more and more perceived and many normal people are becoming bothered by some of these kinds of control matters.. yet they are probably even more bothered if they are finding that their purchasing power is going down, even if they might be working harder and longer, so there can be a lot of things that bother regular people and may well motivate them to want to have various options in regards to how they might store their value or how they might transact, and sometimes there will be trade-offs that become more noticeable, yet what those tradeoffs might be are going to vary from time to time and based on various things that might be happening that might draw attention to how much things cost or how much people pay in transaction fees or perhaps whether their money is holding any of its value.

Regarding the traceability of bitcoin, it is not static, an there are various kinds of systems being developed, and sure if we are transacting through 3rd parties that require KYC, then that would not be as private as compared with being able to transact without KYC or perhaps there could be minimal kinds of KYC to the extent KYC is even required in the first place.  The main thing required in a transaction would likely be whether the value being transacted is real or not and/of if it is what is claimed to be.. So if I go to the store, I want to verify that I am getting a quality product (and I have various ways to attempt to judge that), and the vender wants to make sure when I give him $128 (even if it is received in bitcoin or some other currency) that the value that I am transmitting is accurate and valid at the time that I transact it.  Now whether he has to convert into something else might have costs or if he is going to keep the value in the thing that I send, then he probably wants some assurance that it is going to sufficiently hold its value between the time that he receives it and he might resolve if he is going to hold the value in that asset (if it were bitcoin) or if he might convert it to dollars or some other fiat or some other way that he might want to hold the value.