Of course, you can do what you like, yet I doubt that it is even helpful to agree with the premise of the article, since if they are not even measuring from good data, then the article is full of shit and they are merely trying to spin matters, which you seem to be agreeing that they are spinning, even though you seem to also agree with the their overall premise that BTC usage is decreasing in El Salvador.  I consider it problematic to even allow them that much leeway.

Sure, many of us would like to believe that if the underlying study is coming from an academic institution, then they are going to present accurate data, so they are not just making shit up... .. but still it can be difficult to give them benefits of the doubt when it seems that they are saying that these apples are very similar to these oranges, and sure there are ways to read them with some level of integrity since they are surely comparing two kinds of fruit that may well have a lot of similar attributes.... but there also seems to be quite a bit of lacking of integrity when various aspects of spin are contributing to how they are framing the comparisons, even if they might not be factually inaccurate once we accept their stupid-ass definitions.. and I am not going to go there to accept their stupid ass definitions when we see that there are so many other ways to reframe some of the ideas and even ask some questions in regards to how they arrived at their conclusions in the first place, even though they have the advantage of having the data and we don't but their data still is just not adding up..

You know the expression that it takes way more time and energy to rebutt disinformation (lies) than it did to propagate the lie in the first place.. .. and so I find little comfort in agreeing with any morsel of truth that might exist in their baloney presentation of decreasing bitcoin adoption levels in El Salvador.


Price going up surely attracts attention to bitcoin, and so those who got in earlier are more advantaged to those coming to bitcoin later,  yet those coming to bitcoin later will still be advantaged, yet they will end up having some less advantage due to some of the upside having had already happened.

In other words, bitcoin is designed to pump forever, so people can choose when to get in or not to get in, and so in that particular sense bitcoin markets itself. .and those who do not identify the underlying attributes or they feel that they need to be marketed to in order to better understand, king daddy bitcoin is not going to have any sympathy on those folks and the folks who got in early have no obligation to persuade others to figure it out and to see the light.

So yeah.. many bitcoiners may well have been telling no coiners and low coiner that they should get some bitcoin.. and it seems that there is not a lot that can be done except perhaps point at the BTC price and say:
 
coiner: "look, that has been what I have been trying to tell you." 

No coiner low coiner might say:  "well it looks like I am too late"

Coiner:  "perhaps you should get started and stop delaying your entrance into bitcoin, since it is never too late, and the longer you wait, the higher that you will probably have to buy."

No coiner / low coiner:  "I will think about it.  maybe I will wait for a dip?"

A dip might come, and a dip might not come.  So the situation repeats, and it seems that part of the solution for any low coiner/no coiner is just to bite the bullet and get started and stop wiffle waffling around with their waiting tactics.. waiting for something that may well not end up happening, and they largely end up being in a worse situation the longer that they wait. 

So what more marketing is needed, than "price go up," and "price continue to go up"?  If you don't figure it out and start to buy bitcoin, no one else (besides yourself) is going to save you.  Is there an obligation for the coiner to hold the hand of the no coiner /  the low coiner or try to persuade them further than merely telling them that they better get started as soon as possible and that waiting is not a good idea (or strategy) when it comes to bitcoin?


Some folks were helped by El Salvador's passage of their bitcoin as legal tender law that went into effect in August 2021.  Some people choose not to get involved in bitcoin.  The law could be read as a forcing, as you suggest, yet I doubt that you are even close to giving any kind of genuine and/or accurate reading of what the law was allegedly forcing.  You may well need to back up your claim a wee bit moar better.


How is that?  I think that the data shows that with the passage of time, bitcoin has been increasing in all of its various network effects (those outlined by Trace Mayer) including more users, so why expect that bitcoin adoption is not going to continue to increase into the future.

And, no I am not going to provide data to support my assertion that bitcoin adoption continues to increase with the passage of time. You actually have the burden to provide evidence and logic for your extraordinary claims that seem to defy an abundance of real world facts that I have no need to show you such overwhelming information that is available to anyone who is actually attempting to engage in a genuine discussion based on real world facts and real world logic, rather than your ongoing fantasy coming from counter-reality assertions.


Sure it is true that Bigger and BIGGER players are focusing on accumulating bitcoin, and they also seem to be gobbling it up too... which logically seems to imply that fewer individuals are going to be able to have as much of it, and even if the same quantity of people are able to have bitcoin, then the fact that BIGGER players are gobbling up a lot of the bitcoin, then that likely means that the smaller players would not be able to have as much of the bitcoin, proportionately speaking.. yet you still seem to be getting ahead of yourself in terms of your proclaiming that you know the ramifications of the BTC price going up and BIGGER players hoarding the bitcoin.. and sure there also might be a lot of battles related to self-custody versus custody of third parties, yet you are still making a lot of presumptions about abilities to transact (or inabilities to transact), and I suppose you want to proclaim your scam coin as part of the solution, yet at the same time, you seem to be presuming bitcoin to be broken prior to it even being broken. 

Right now, as I type this post, I see onchain bitcoin transactions going through in the ballpark of  1-10 sats per vbyte, and in the last week we have had a lot of times that the transactions have been going through at the lower  end of that range, which surely does not show any kind of an immediate problem, including that in the past week we have also had a lot of BTC price movement too, which could also have various attributions in regards to short-term BTC price movements - so no need to go down that road.. except to be just pointing out that your presumptions in connection with onchain bitcoin being supposedly broken are not supported by actual facts and/or logic, except your seemingly ongoing pie in the sky wishes about some unsubstantiated talking points that you want to continue to spout out without providing actual fact-based logic to back up your ongoing nonsense claims.