Quote from: legiteum on Today at 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 08:38:48 AM

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.

Huh? Like saying Toyota doesn't need Nissan to be successful. That makes no sense.

If you are convoluting your understanding of bitcoin and you really don't know what bitcoin is, then perhaps you might not understand the difference between bitcoin and tether.... even though you already stated that you understand bitcoin to be decentralized and tether is not.. .. so whatever non-understanding you are purporting to have seems to be on purpose....

In other words, can you really be that dumb, or are you just being dumb on purpose?

Regarding the difference between Toyota and Nissan, they are two car companies from Japan. So they seem to be very similar. You seem to be the one with the problem if you believe that Bitcoin and Tether are that closely related to one another.

Maybe I can provide some hints? For example, Tether purposefully attempts to peg its value to the dollar. Bitcoin does not do that.

Bitcoin has a largely pre-established issuance schedule in which there can be some variance in regards to how much processing power might be necessary to increase odds for success in receiving bitcoin's block reward every 10 minutes (approximately), and the difficulty for guessing in terms of processing power (and hashing power) is adjusted based on every 2016 blocks (approximately every two weeks), so that if blocks are being guessed faster on average than every 10 minutes, then the difficulty is made more difficult, and if they are being guessed slower than every 10 minutes, then the difficulty is made easier. Tether does not have an issuance that is even closely to being rigorous and decentralized like bitcoins, and not that I am going to claim to understand exactly how Tether determines to issue or not issue new coins, even though as I mentioned earlier they try to back their coins, and surely it is disputed from time to time regarding the extent to which Tether's coins are actually backed by dollars, bitcoin and/or other assets, even though Tether does some times provide some information and explanations regarding their practices and how they might change their practices from time to time based on their own determinations.. or maybe they are influenced by some outside powers from time to time too.. I wouldn't claim to know too many details.

Quote from: legiteum on Today at 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 08:38:48 AM

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.

Do you have evidence of these assertions, or are you just trying to say that what I am saying makes you angry somehow?

I don't need any evidence. You were the one making the outrageous claims, so likely you are the one who needs to provide both evidence and arguments to support your lame ass non-sense. The mere fact that I respond to you does not shift any burden onto me to rebutt your baloney non-backed up assertions with my own evidence, when you did not provide shit for either evidence and or logic for your nonsense in the first place.

That is what disingenuine full-of-shit trolls like you do. Come to the thread, fill it with a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense, and then attempt to proclaim that the burden is on others to provide evidence to show that you are wrong.. when you are just spouting out bullshit in the first place. If you want tyour bullshit to be believed, you are the one who should be providing both evidence and logic to support your pie in the sky and almost exclusively fantasized claims.

Quote from: legiteum on Today at 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 08:38:48 AM

Seems to me that bitcoin continues to grow in so many [...]

Of course Bitcoin has increased in price, and it might increase further. There are many factors that drive an instrument's price. IBM mainframes are still sold today and they still sell for a lot of money, for instance.

Yes. I referred to bitcoin's growth in terms of price and other network effects, so fuck off with your lame ass attempts to narrow down the various ways that bitcoin is growing.

And, sure you don't need to believe it, and sure you can have fun fucking around with your credit cards or your digits in the bank or whatever it is that you are proclaiming to be a better place to hold your value.

Quote from: legiteum on Today at 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 08:38:48 AM

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.

Can you please give us a link that demonstrates how the Bitcoin network has significantly changed for its users in, say, the last 12 months?

Why? There are various ways that you can measure bitcoin's growth whether looking at BTC spot price as a proxy or the 200-WMA. You could also look at transactions being carried out (such as here), or you could just look at every 10 minutes bitcoin processed another block. Tick, tock, next block. Bitcoin does not need to change in order to improve, since there is value in just continuing to exist, even though what I already mentioned is also changes for the better.. that show ongoing growth... and there are more, but I have no obligation to show you, especially if you seem to largely be a purposefully blind and disingenuine twat. You are not even trying to engage in any kind of honest and/or meaningful discussion related to bitcoin or even related to bitcoin in El Salvador.

Quote from: legiteum on Today at 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 08:38:48 AM

Fiat institutions relate to various confusing and convoluted monetary systems that are inexistence [...]

Fascinating. Can you give us a specific example of a "fiat institution"? Like one with an address and a website, and not just a vague "them"?

Nope. I am not going to do it... Sorry.. You do your own homework.

Perhaps if you really were interested in considering various aspects of how convoluted, vacuous and made up are the various fiat debt systems, then you might be able to learn quite a bit from one of Robert Breedlove's December 2021 interviews with Jeff Snider, in which they discuss quit a bit how so many fiat shenanigans are frequently taking place in regards to how many financial accountants are just making shit up.. and ongoingly creating money out of thin air. You can choose for yourself how much you want to live in a fantasy and just act as if fiat monetary systems are actually backed up in meaningful ways that empower individuals.. not that you would give any shits about individuals having any kind of financial self-sovereignty, right?

Quote from: legiteum on Today at 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 08:38:48 AM

Quote from: legiteum on Today at 07:34:08 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 07:13:21 AM

Bitcoin cannot just take over the dollar without systems building and people getting used to it.

Yes, people need to "get used to" transactions taking up to 30 minutes to transact, and cost up to $30.

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.

L2s are not Bitcoin. L2s are what you Bitcoin maxis would call a "shitcoin" because it's not... Bitcoin, and you call anything that isn't Bitcoin a "shitcoin".

It sounds like you have everything figured out, and you can determine that if transactions are not done on chain, then they are not sufficiently bitcoin? Again, you seem to just be making up your own parameters so that you can strike it down, which is called arguing strawman's if you had not heard of such a fallacy that you are engaged in a fantasy argument with yourself, which surely is easier to win if you just make up your own definitions regarding what counts and what doesn't count.

Quote from: legiteum on Today at 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 08:38:48 AM

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.

Absolutely. But 99.99% of the world's daily transactions are not $1000 or even $100.

So? You believe that bitcoin has to take over all transactions and to be onchain transactions for bitcoin to be successful or to have legitimate purposes or reasons for being or the adding of value to society?, and it seems that you are making up numbers too in regards to what are typical transactions or what might be eligible transactions to the extent that transactions even matter in terms of getting into specifics, since I would conjecture that there are likely plenty of transactions that are more than $100 or more than $1k that would be more than eligible to be done either on bitcoin directly or perhaps on some second or third layer of bitcoin that (for some seemingly opportunistic reasons) you proclaim to believe that second and third layer bitcoin transactions do not count since they are not really true bitcoin blah blah blah...

Quote from: legiteum on Today at 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 08:38:48 AM

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?

Interesting idea. What centralized, non-Bitcoin system would you use to make these transactions?

When I mentioned the $30 batching.. I am talking about bitcoin.. so maybe you don''t even know how to send transactions on bitcoin or to coin control or to send transactions to multiple recipients, and the fee does not go up because the transaction goes by the weight size of the data, an the data weight does not increase by including additional recipients.

Quote from: legiteum on Today at 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 08:38:48 AM

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..

I never said they were. I only said that their moving to other products--and breaking Bitcoin's monopoly--is a bad long-term sign for Bitcoin.

You can believe whatever you like. I doubt that whatever you perceive El Salvador to be doing in regards to its creating alliances with Tether is as bad or dramatic as you seem to be wanting to make it out to be, and like I said I am having difficulties believing you since you have already shown yourself to be quite prone to exaggeration and making shit up.

Quote from: legiteum on Today at 04:32:38 PM

That doesn't mean anything will happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, or that Bitcoin's price will crash in the next year, or even anything, since there are a lot of factors in any product's success in the market. But El Salvador bring in other non-Bitcoin currencies is not a positive development for Bitcoin. There might be other factors that overcome this one, but that factor itself is negative.

You really don't need to be so hysterical...

You seem to be the one who is hysterical, and you are even admitting that you are describing some speculation that you have way down the road that may or may not end up materializing, and at the same time you haven't been providing any meaningful evidence or logic to support your largely unsubstantiated opinionated claims. If that is not hysterical, then that should still rise to the level of exaggerating.

Quote from: Agbe on Today at 08:59:30 PM

This is more confusing here in the lately discussion I am seeing. Bitcoin and Tether coins are not related in any form. Probably there is a typo because I know very well that J.J.G will not relate bitcoin with any other shitcoin. He is well grounded with bitcoin. Bitcoin uses L1 while Tether uses L2. Though I am not following up this thread like that and I have not heard from any news that El Salvador is intended in Tether. And let me.come to the course of discussion. El Salvador adoption of bitcoin is for the development of the country.

You seem to be allowing the dweeb @legiteum to distract you.

legiteum is largely just trolling this thread with his nonsense talking points to proclaim that El Salvador is losing its way since it is creating alliances with Tether and also considering to welcome Tether to put its headquarters in El Salvador.. to the extent that Tether's headquarter location matters in regards to El Salvador continuing to follow its various ongoing bitcoin initiatives within the country...

Whether Tether is a shitcoin or not seems almost besides the point, even though one of Tether's main uses cases is that it is a kind of coin that it is largely pegged to the dollar - and I doubt that it is accurate to blanketly proclaim tether is a shitcoin or that tether is layer 2 or layer 3 since it seems to be providing a fiat onboarding layer, and sure it may well have it's own various issue, yet Tether is not bitcoin and bitcoin is not tether, so the mere fact that there are overlaps and or allegiances seem to just be a distracting sidepoint in whch legiteum is seeming to want to derail aspects of this thread with his ongoing drama, exaggerations, unsubstantiated talking points and even misinformation that comes from failing to back up his various seemingly nonsense talking points with facts and/or logic.

If you are confused, I guess that legiteum has been successful in his aims for mischief.

Quote from: Sonia_123 on Today at 09:04:02 PM

[edited out]

Even if there was fun at various points along the way, I doubt that bitcoin was ever a joke in terms of what it was attempting to achieve in relation to various El Salvador - related ambitions.