But Bitcoin will still preserve a workers savings over time, something fiat can’t do. Anyone has the opportunity to go in right now at the same price, yet a lot of people are spending more time defending fiat or demanding crazy policies(not you), than to take some actions that can benefit their future. It’s a lost cause to reach even distribution in a free market, because people aren’t rational enough to go in early. These earlier risk takers made it possible in the first place and later on they pay the same price as everyone else. There needs to be some incentive to build something.

The people that are rich later on will also need to start using their coins in real economic activity/ spending if they want to benefit from it, as there is no mechanism to create new coins that can make them richer without work or risk like in fiat. Better distribution will occur naturally when thiers law starts coming into play and Bitcoin will be used as a medium of exchange.

Im the case many rich people don’t use their coins at all, they’re like lost coins and out of the circulation, which also benefits the average individual again, as their coins in circulation will become more valuable.

There is unique things about a Bitcoin economy that benefits the average person, they won’t get purely exploited like in fiat. This is about fixing money and not getting rich, not everyone can be rich in the first place, yet Bitcoin still smh protects the interests of the individual again.

A government that serves its people should have no fears of abandonment, maybe they should rethink who they really wanna serve.

Its psychology of the masses sadly, defying all logic or facts. When they lack social bonds, meaning in life, are anxious and frustrated they just need to get served one narrative that creates a common enemy and they will go nuts and will form a bond of sheeps. Then they do everything to make this bond survive and to keep the feeling meaning alive, no matter if its completely unethical or plain wrong. They can hide everything from the masses with this strategy, no matter if its the causation of inflation, that fiat is a predatory system or that Bitcoin isnt the cause of energy problems, they can just blame Bitcoin anyways and people will do as told. The only thing we can do against this is go against these false narratives again and again, to not let these sheep get out of hand in their ecstasy of craziness. Ignoring doesnt work sadly, as it only strenghtens their irrationality if they stay in an echo chamber.

You give up ownership of an asset in return for fiat/ or give up fiat in return for assets. Fiat doesnt record what assets you own, you exchange it for assets. You can have a lot of assets and zero fiat, because fiat doesnt even record what assets you own in the first place.

This is literally what makes people rich in this system, minimising fiat holdings, and maximising assets being held. This is the only open secret regular people dont get yet, because they wanna maximise their holdings in fiat, even tho it makes them poorer over time and they are hesitant to acquire any assets/ or knowledge about how things work. Fiat currencies just record how much fiat you own, its not different from Bitcoin in this. After this logic any money is a fraudulent investment scheme.

It matters, its like assuming all gold in fort knox will magically disappear from earth one day. There is already high security, remote facilities/ bunkers in the swiss alps storing billions in bitcoin, safe from atomic blasts and everything, so lets just assume they didnt think of eliminating human errors from the process, but everything else(totally realistic). These locations could possibly exist in more places in the world. Regular peoples Bitcoin back ups are most likely stored in some places that are way easier to access, than digging out some new gold. Its even possible to still use backups when only some words are missing/wrong, by bruteforcing, so they dont even have to stay in perfect condition to be recoverable.

We can assume that there is also an amount of Bitcoin that is being recovered/ will be recovered. For now its true that some Bitcoin is lost forever, but as long as humanity lives in a civilization, we can probably assume that the ratio of lost/recovered Bitcoin will get close to zero one day. Or that a big enough amount of Bitcoin will simply never be lost, if no more Bitcoin will be recovered(In a timeframe that matters for civilization).

What theoretical scenario is there where all already digged out gold would vanish from earth forever, that humanity would survive? It just doesnt matter.

The market value amount of the block reward counts. We already counted out the possibilty of all Bitcoins being lost now, in a scenario that matters for civilization. With a tail emission you risk lowering that market value as it is debasement of the currency. In the scenario where the added tail emission doesnt have enough market value to secure the network, you could fall into the same debasement spiral as any other currency that started debasement fell into. You will need more and more debasement to pay for security, but users will start to drop out, because their currency is becoming worthless and there would be better alternatives for storing value competing in that situation. Bitcoin is competing against many assets and currencies worldwide, we cant assume it has already won forever and tail emissions will simply pay miners more in any situation. The possibility that the current Bitcoin protocol can be more profitable to miners/ more beneficial to users is there, and more likely to me personally.

When holding your own keys the important thing is to get it right, there is some time window someone can afford to take their time to learn these things and leave them on 3rd parties. In the initial stages, how much Bitcoin was bought can also be a factor, because if a newbie starts out with lets say 200$, then it makes little sense to get a hardware wallet that might cost something in the range of 150$. But over the course of dca this ratio will change, and then it will make a lot of sense to get one. Also in the beginning it might be overwhelming to learn about Bitcoin, and to self custody your money for the first time ever, so people might be more comfortable with sticking to something they know. The important thing is to get it right and not lose your keys, than rushing to hold your keys and possibly losing them. And then sure if someone wants to leave a certain % of their holdings onto exchanges, there might be practical reasons to do so. It will probably highly depend on the individual financial situation of El Salvadorians to consider taking self-custody or not. If someone doesnt even have any kind of savings, it might not even make a difference to get something more secure, as there is nothing to lose. But for someone with even as little as 1000$ it might actually make sense, to take self-custody over it, especially in Bitcoin. As it could grow over time and doesnt have the inflation, confiscation, censorship, banking problems of fiat.

Bitcoin might still help them build any kind of wealth as they can get access to payments that are not controlled by central entities. Oftentimes in countries with high degrees of emigration, people that left might want to send their family and friends some remittances, but most of it will be eaten by banks, governments or smugglers. This is a huge barrier that was almost impossible to overcome, and still is in countries where Bitcoin education is lacking. The problem is getting this knowledge to people that barely have access/ knowledge about technology and live in hostile/ controlled environments, just making Bitcoin legal tender makes this whole process a whole lot easier and safer already. And could help some people out of poverty in the long term.

We saw this all the time with even older hodlers who just forgot they had some significant amount of Bitcoin on hard drives and didnt take any care of backing it up and then losing it. As Bitcoin grows in price, people can afford/ have to take greater security measures to save them.


There is some kind of balance between the two. If someone is completely dependent on centralized services the tyranny starts, but in a healthy environment, where people took care of having enough access to decentralized services, centralized services would simply start to get abandoned if they tried some iffy things and only the good ones would survive, if people decide to only use them. There will probably always remain some kind of demand for some centralized services, for various reasons, or simply because many people dont realize the difference decentralization makes until its too late. The important thing is that we have enough decentralized services in use for people to have secure alternatives where its possible.

Good point, it kinda defeats the fud that Nayib Bukele is only trying to get investments from the outside into El Salvador, that was brought up by people. The shitcoin world would be happy to pump a lot more resources into a country, that they could make their playground, as they have billions in backings from VCs. And they could play into the trendy narrative that shitcoins are so much more energy friendly etc. But we see this is not happening, which makes these accusations look ridiculous again, any country wants investments, but this is obviously not a scheme to maximise money being brought into the country, as shitcoinery would bring in a lot more and be easier than just sticking to Bitcoin.


True.

Debt can be handled in Bitcoin too, theres no point here. The question is not wether or not debt is an asset. We are talking about forms of money. The claim is that debt is what gives fiat its value. But at the same time we know that debt based money creation has the consequence of debasing ones currency, which makes it less valuable over time, the more this process is being repeated. Which is already a contradiction in itself.

I will ask some questions now, to see if you even have the capacity to understand this topic, sadly its necessary because the amount of trolls is huge. What would the criteria for a hard and sound money be? And why cant Bitcoin fulfill it?

Can software have value and impact on the world? Theyre all just digits if we go down to machine code.

If software can have value, what value would a system have, that has made a breaktrough in computer science by making it possible to store information in an unforgeable, uncensorable, open to anyone way without needing a central entity, and uses this foundation to issue money?

The oldest reference from the whitepaper is from 1957, but we can also choose the second oldest one, as its more related to cryptography. So we have atleast 28 years of prior research that lead to this moment. We have more than 15.000 nodes running the software all over the world, building a network and enforcing rules. Millions of lines of code, some of the best maintained production software there is, over 800 contributors that are really good in their fields. Interdisciplinary knowledge that shaped its architecture. An active community that is engaged in many things and wants to see humanity progressing. Is it all just pure faith or actual work?

If the status quo financial system is good, why didnt Bitcoin stay at 0 market value? As it shouldnt even be able to compete against a superior system that is so beneficial, yet it is competing.

Name them.

Its not, there will be enough nodes that will never accept this change, so there will always be a fixed supply Bitcoin.

Bitcoins are backed up in a physical way(Steel, paper, whatever) and stored like any other valuable item. Is all gold lost, if we stopped finding new one? I dont think so. There is maybe 2 kinds of different people, the people that dont manage to take care of it well enough, and people that find ways to do it, and never/barely lose anything.

Backups can also be found again/stolen, or Coins can be transfered into a new wallet with a new backup, if the backup was lost but theres still access to them. This assumption will probably fail in practice, lets prove it, instead of claiming the species that is hoarding the most ridiculous things, is unable to hoard Bitcoin back ups at all, that are actually valuable.

So then we also have new ways to eliminate single points of failure trough multi sig, you can store seeds in different places and it doesnt matter if you lost however many seeds you specified beforehand. This is something not even gold or anything else has, imagine you could recover a full 5 ounces of gold, if you just need to manage to store 3 of them safely(or 3 of 5 access keys, if we want to be more accurate). And then its always possible to update the security model by just transfering coins into another wallet for example, if you have already noticed that 1 seed is lost/ compromised.

If theyre backed up digitally, its also likely for them to get into some hand that knows how to store them safely, after enough tries.

Bitcoins success wil likey depend on the properties it offers and not on the amount of coins in circulation. It can store the same amount of value, no matter if theres 15 million or 5 million coins in circulation, then it just incentivises people to even take more care of their satoshis, as the value of each individual satoshi rises. And rewards the people that keep them secure. Bitcoin is highly divisible, the circulation can actually be handled by subdividing it into smaller parts, this wont mess people up, that didnt mess up themselves, that is the subtle difference to inflation.

A tail emission is like debasing a currency, if we start to mix copper into gold, we can act like we have gold more coins, but once people realise this they will switch into alternatives again and the value of each individual coin falls in value. And the properties of your currency changed, so more and more people might not even want it anymore. There has been many attemps troughout history to fix problems trough debasement, but it never brought desirable results for the majority of users and never lead to a ultimately successfull currency.

If they just printed money in emergencies like this, it would be fine and justified. The real problem is that entire nation states are dependent on close to 0 interest rates and would go bankrupt if some normality would come back and higher rates came back. The complete reliance on printed money is dangerous in my opinion and requires central planning, which we know cant work in the long term.

Also its questionable that private institutions like banks have been given to power to basically create money out of nowhere, with fractional reserving and just 1% in minimum reserve requirements. In the beginning this concept might generate more economic growth, but what were seeing now is that the purchasing power of the population is lowering trough constant devaluation of money, and that in times where production is low, inflation creeps in too, the effects are catastrophic, we are going into a living cost crisis.

This system cant be fixed in itself anymore, that is the problem. It always requires more planning and policies, instead of being sustainable in itself.

Bitcoin is just decentralized in itself, to ensure its properties will stay like it is and that it cant be controlled by a minority of people, for money this is huge.

I get your concern. I think full decentralization will fail in practice, it was here before centralization and got replaced for a reason. We need police, hospitals, firefighters, courts etc. Who will protect an average persons property? Who will build roads and infrastructure? Who will pick you up in an accident? Who will treat you when youre sick? Who will help you if youre out of a job? There is so many things Bitcoin cant solve, its just money. States formed for a reason, many people might be frustrated currently, but having no social security net is even more damaging. And lawlessness wont ever work or come back on a big scale. There just needs to be some checks on the state again and we need to push bad monetary policy and central planning a little back, only decentralized money can compete against states. The government will just have to compete against it, this is not a replacement question, this dynamic comes in handy more than ever now.

Maybe my view is different here, because in the country i live you can get the same doctors and universities any rich person can afford, at barely any cost. There is no difference in the quality/ access of the service no matter if youre rich or poor. This might differ from country to country, but my concern is that when theres no real rules here, then poorer people might get priced out of healthcare and education, this is catastrophic for society. Getting a degree or going to a hospital shouldnt mean high debts like in the U.S.

Rich people can always afford better teachers and doctors privately, the state should offer the best quality schools and hospitals they can for everyone, this is the best case scenario for a society in my opinion. Rich people just use private insurances here to get out of public insurances, as it can save them some money, but then when theyre actually sick it becomes expensive and was pointless.

Now you’re starting to ask the right questions.

We have to look further than just buyer/ seller related issues, this is about monetary system design. Current payment methods are less relevant, as we have two competing currencies in circulation, Fiat(soft money) and Bitcoin(hard money), the payment stuff comes later. If we follow Greshams law, soft money drives out hard money from circulation, as people would rather keep hold onto something more valuable, than to use it daily. In the initial phase Fiat will still be the primary payment method, this doesn’t matter for Bitcoin now.

The first practical issue is Store of Value related. The money supply from last the financial crisis(2008) since now already increased by 182%, sure this isn’t direct inflation, but debasement still has long term impacts. Now you have already correctly analysed that it is necessary to hedge against this with long term investments. But we also gotta ask ourselves is this option open to everyone and can this economical model work forever? If the answer is no, we might consider, if it would make sense to invest something that could be a fix to the current issues. They are:

• Loss of purchasing power.
• Fragility of the banking sector.
• Fraudulent activities by central authorities.
• Failing fiat system that needs more and more authoritarianism to keep alive.
• Risk of censorship and confiscation.
• Lowered trust in financial institutions.

Also hedging against inflation doesn’t solve the problem of inflation in the first place. The whole approach has ever been let’s debase our currency to fix all problems, yet there’s no evidence of any betterment being the result of this approach. It’s the opposite actually.

To make it even more clear, let’s just compare different forms of money with the common criteria:

Most saleable good(easiness of tradebility with a good) - this changes over time.

• 1. Fiat
• 2. Bitcoin
• 3. Gold

Store of value - Scarcity(Supply relative to other goods), Durability(No loss in functionality with repeated use)

• 1. Bitcoin (limited; durable)
• 2. Gold (unlimited, but scarce; durable)
• 3. Fiat (unlimited, increasing rapidly; not durable, as debt-based money creation makes it a weaker form of money over time, with repeated use)

Medium of Exchange -

Acceptability(Used and accepted by others)

• 1. Fiat(most accepted and used)
• 2. Bitcoin(gaining more and more popularity and usage, but less accepted)
• 3. Gold(accepted in special locations, probably only usable by overpaying in daily commerce currently)

Portability(Easily moveable across distances)

• 1.Bitcoin(extremly easy and fast, can move faster than the person itself, least costly solution for high amounts today, most secure option)
• 2. Fiat(Banking system is slow + costly, and even slower + costlier over long distances; No guaranteed security, because there’s always a counterparty risk(No matter if you use Credit Cards, Paypal or wire) or transportation risk/ cost when transporting physical bills; Also makes currency conversion necessary over longer distances)
• 3. Gold(terribly hard, expensive and dangerous to transport)

Unit of Account -

Divisibility(Easily dividable into smaller units)

• 1. Bitcoin(Easy, 8 decimal places)
• 2. Fiat(Good, 2 decimal places)
• 3. Gold(terrible, needs a lot of work)

Fungibility(1 unit is the same as the other)

• 1. Bitcoin(All units are the same, altough some people argue that the history of coins can affect its desirability for others, cant be counterfeited, can easily be verified)
• 2. Fiat(Bills are the same, but higher ones arent accepted everywhere, can be counterfeited, less relevant for digital fiat, but harder to verify overall)
• 3. Gold(theres different coins/ bars with different degrees of desirability, also its not easy to verify real gold for everyone)

The only outlook we got from central banks to repair fiat would be to introduce digital currencies, but we all know this whole construct needs more and more complexity and control to keep functioning.

This is contradicting the basic task of money: enabling a system of indirect trade. Which of these 3 currencies can potentially do it the best, where would free trade flourish the most? And thus benefit society, because we can all agree that the well-being of society is in decline everywhere, it’s just obvious. We’re discussing social reforms, without trying to get to the root of problem. Fiat robbed money it’s beneficial function for most people, otherwise the opposite trend would be true, and we would see financial well-being in societies rise, the technological progress is there. But it’s just not the case.

Bitcoin is a money that is superior in all aspects listed above, except acceptability, but this is already on an upwards trend. We have the first money that works without a middleman. Where you can’t actually change the properties listed above easily. Where transactions can’t be censored, where wealth can’t be confiscated. Which money would benefit society the most, if we put our political biases aside and look at this from a neutral economical perspective.

To me the answer is obvious.

There is no current solution by fiat economists to protect an average individual from inflation, bank failures, confiscation risks, loosing your money with absolute certainty. Bitcoin is a unique solution to whole problem, so people simply choose this, instead of going the more inefficient route to hedge into other assets that don’t have the potential to fix the system.

Why should nodes run a change that has no practical benefit? Artificially increasing the supply is basically just debasing a currency, there’s some people who believe such changes could fix security or distribution by ignoring what this basic concept does. This isn’t a new method and happened countless times with any currency almost, and always failed and never benefited the majority of a currency users.

Such a change would probably lead to a hard fork, and the OG Bitcoin would still come out as the better currency with more value. It’s probably impossible that every node would agree to such a change ever, so count it as impossible. That an altcoin will do it one day, is highly likely tho.

So? They own many assets like gold, land, real estate, pension funds, some stocks, some companies etc. And can always give out their own currency with forced value attached to it. And will probably start owning Bitcoin or other assets themselves. Taking down a state isn’t possible that easily.

Not just for payments, Bitcoin is money. If you don’t ask yourself why do we need better money, then maybe you don’t understand how the current monetary system is putting you at a disadvantage and making you poorer than you would have otherwise been. And is making entire financial systems fragile. That is what Bitcoin is here to fix, the only money that doesn’t require trust to work as the trust based money model always failed and will always fail.

And one addition, in the hypothetical case that so many people are pro Bitcoin that they would try to defund the state, if the state is against it. All it takes for the state is to appreciate Bitcoin and make it legalized to keep their power, it doesn’t even take force. So a scenario where a state would fall is highly unlikely.

Exactly, it will happen again and again.

The government won’t be out, they still have a monopoly on force and laws, but they lost their monopoly over money. Maybe they would even start to shift course and appreciate the properties Bitcoin offers to the people, and use it as a superior tool of finance and maybe even start contributing to it’s security etc. Fiat creates them problems themselves don’t forget that, a mess that they have to try to fix, but they don’t have a fix they can create themselves.

I don’t think decentralization will spread over to any aspect of society, you will still need government services for most things:

• Healthcare.
• Police.
• Jurisdiction.
• Education.
• Military(no military only works, if no other countries has it, but if one country starts building militaries again, the others have to do it too, or they can be conquered easily).
• Social services.
• Basically everything the government is now doing too.

Except if they loose their monopoly over money, it could actually make societies more strong again and where decentralization really brings in huge benefits.

It’s the same now in most countries, your employer will probably deduct taxes beforehand and you will only get the taxed amount payed out. Just like now, because otherwise the state would start closing their business. The difference with decentralized money will be: No one can confiscate your already taxed money, or make it worthless over time. This is huge, if people had this in the past, the whole course of history would probably have been different.

They will tax people, there’s a saying: only two things are certain, taxes and death. Even if the state looses their power temporarily and a vacuum forms, after some time a new state will probably form again. We can’t escape this.

Sure, if this is the concern i can completely understand it. When people use it they should put in the same mentality as with any centralized service and never trust it, no matter what.

This is something not unique to chivo and many people are still using centralized services for various practical reasons. But we also gotta look at the unique situation El Salvador was in, with 70% of the population being unbanked and not having access to easy financial services at all. Now he introduced a state banking like app, that gives people access to fiat, bitcoin main layer and lightning payments for people that had nothing beforehand. Then there’s practical reasons that make it necessary to convert between all these and make them interoperable. And people here are complaining about gambling and centralisation for using money and building infrastructure to introduce these services, what do they expect politicians to do? What more practical solutions could a central entity have offered in this situation, as they can’t even build something decentralized? Put emotions to the side and this is a huge opportunity he gave to people, who didn’t have access to anything beforehand. This is actually their opportunity to even use decentralized services easily in the first hand, as they now have access to the main layer and lightning, even if chivo wouldn’t use these in their daily operations. It’s just another side network.

People can only use decentralized services themselves, this a burden the state can’t take from them. It’s also important to have realistic expectations and look at how/ why things are being used. The state will do its job, and people need to do their own. Not your keys, not your coins. If we’re concerned, we should maybe teach El Salvadorians how to store their Bitcoin safely/ run nodes and not use centralized services when they don’t need to. Chivo might still offer utility, in the same way bank accounts and central exchanges still offer some kind of utility and we’re using one of the two too, without complaining to our politicians that these services are centralized, what else should they be? Should they start lying to us and just make it seem like it’s decentralized, when it can never be, to make us feel better?

I completely agree, like i said, people shouldn’t get too comfortable with any centralized service and we should try to teach them now, to prevent further damages. The criticism on the state specifically are unjustified tho now, as no one before this government had made any considerable attempts at banking this huge part of the population, and the app is there to solve this task. It’s easy to bash anything without context, like some people here do again and again.

The simple question in the end is, would El Salvador have been better off without making Bitcoin legal tender and introducing Chivo? If yes, how and why weren’t they better off before? Constructive proposals are the only thing that could help them.

I didn’t mean be to be disrespectful, but the volatility will lessen over time as it grows in market cap, one day it could be a way more stable currency and actually be useful to price things in it. For now in practice it doesn’t matter as we’re still pricing things in fiat anyways and businesses can simply convert without any volatility drawbacks. The real gain might be the option for people to have a currency that’s promising to be saved in the long term, and that many people would have the access to a kind of banking app, even if it’s centralized, as they can switch to decentralized alternatives from there.

This wasn’t the reason and i never called you stupid, the cringe thing is that you accuse Naybib Bukele of not grasping basic concepts, when you’re the one who doesn’t grasp some basic things. Also El Salvador uses LN, it doesnt matter if just chivo does not, as you can still use LN everywhere.

This is the cringe part again, as you would have ever trusted a state wallet to be truly trustworthy. And youre talking about all of El Salvador, even tho it’s just an app and people there can use any alternative they want. If they wanna bank people with this app and the state is a central entity anyways, that could never be trusted to have the authority over a „decentralised“ app, they might as well go the centralized route and be honest about it and more efficient at it. This app is built for fiat and bitcoin after all. Also if you’re not running your own lightning node, idk how you would consider it decentralized in the first place, this is a custodial solution from a centralized entity and you’re expecting decentralization and talking about Bitcoins philosophy, from a product that could never deliver it and isn’t supposed to deliver it.

They spent 2% of their government spending on Bitcoin last year. Is this gambling?

Then they tried, but it doesn’t matter as Bitcoin is legal tender now and they have to keep the trust fund. These 2% would have been spent anyways, what else would have been more promising economically?

Then i dont get your point, any state wallet couldnt be trusted as decentralized, so they might as well use a centralized approach that fits their needs better. If people can still use any lightning wallet, then what is the shocking thing? We’re all also still using bank accounts even tho it’s centralized and untrustworthy.

You can still use any lightning wallet, that is the point. Even if chivo doesn’t do it apparently.

The merchants can convert to usd right away trough chivo, maybe thats why did they did it.

Tell me a time when it wasn’t like this?

The only person looking stupid here is you. Will you tell a poor person to fix their finances by just not spending money and doing nothing? This won’t work when there’s not enough money coming in, in the first place.

It takes work and investments to better things, especially if this country lacks in all areas. If they’re getting hate from people like you, means they’re probably doing things right.

He didn’t even take any risks, for the 1000th time, the Bitcoin El Salvador is holding are not at risk and serve a purpose, because they need to convert between different currencies, that’s why they’re using a trust fund.

Fix what? Do you see anything about fixing El Salvadors finances in the specifications of Bitcoin? Before you open your mouth, think of solutions, your crying wont advance anyone and we both know that you’re not interested in El Salvadors well-being, but spreading fud about Bitcoin adoption.

How much money was used and for which purpose?

How would relying only on the dollar would have bettered the situation for El Salvador in a recession?


Sure, this must be the real reason why they’re suggesting this and creating a stable financial system must be an easy task in a poor country that is plagued by corruption.

So why does it work?

It won’t be volatile forever, but this problem is fixed now by accounting in usd and just converting right away in daily commerce, that’s why they put up a trust fund to do exactly this. Volatility will also work in your favour when you’re holding long term, there’s no advantage into saving into currency that is set in falling in value. People should understand money first when they talk about these things, Bitcoin isn’t used as a unit of account yet and that’s fine, the volatility problem doesn’t matter when you don’t account in Bitcoin and convert right away. Bitcoin will be way more stable in the future when the market cap matures, and then it can be used as a unit of account easily too.

Also as long as the dollar circulates it will probably be used for daily commerce, as this is what greshams law suggest. When we come to the point where the bad money(dollar) will have lost too much value, then Bitcoin will take over in daily circulation, this is what thiers law suggest. Everything we’re seeing so far is completely expected and in accordance with economics.

Fail, how? It won’t.

Cringe. You’re the person here who doesn’t grasp basic concepts and can’t think further than 5 minutes.

They’re not using the main chain. You can use any lightning wallet and their state wallet uses lightning too, to my knowledge.