4 ms·

So the key reason for btc adoption in El Salvador is cheaper remittance payments, I find it odd that an article that sets out to criticize btc in El Salvador do

So the key reason for btc adoption in El Salvador is cheaper remittance payments, I find it odd that an article that sets out to criticize btc in El Salvador doesn't even mention the original intended use case.

dundarious 5y ago
Why are retailers forced to support BTC transactions if that is not a key part of the adoption?
- el-salvador 5y ago
  Based from what I've seen form the rule of law system in El Salvador for the past months... That the most possible answer is that... Someone from the government tweeted or said that they had to do it on a tv interview, otherwise they would officially face fines or perhaps closures.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    Yeah, isn't it a legal requirement subject to penalties, as you say? Then surely it's fair to measure success of the program on those terms as well -- i.e., is it being used as a currency for daily life? The answer is seemingly not (for technical, social, and speculation reasons), meaning it's fair to comment that this part of the project seems to be a failure. OP can't carve off criticisms they don't like or _personally_ care about.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
NicoJuicy 5y ago
What would the problem be to use Transferwise?
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  Cost! And speed! I did a transfer wise last week and it cost me $15 in fees. What is this, ethereum?(a joke cos ethereum is too expensive to be useful for the retail user). I could have sent BTC and it would have been quicker and cheaper.
  - beervirus 5y ago
    $15 is right in line with current btc transaction fees. Maybe a tiny bit higher, but not much.
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
      No it isn’t. You are making this up. A BTC tx costs $0.07 1 sat/vbyte (mempool.space) right now.
      - beervirus 5y ago
        I’m looking at this: https://bitcoinfees.co/ https://bitcoinfees.co/
        randomhodler84 5y ago
        Wow. That site is very wrong. Their historical data is wrong too. It’s all the same value!! It’s about 100x off reality. It’s been known since 2020 that it is fiction. Bitcoinfees.net appears to be correct (1-2 sats/vB). https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/ https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/ Also shows vast majority in last 24 hours paid <10sats/vB. I notice that earn is also reporting way way too high numbers. The fact is you can send 1sat/vbyte right now and it will confirm. 7 cents. Anyone actually using BTC will agree with me here. Look at the mempool. If it’s empty, BTC is super cheap. It is empty right now and frequently is on weekends.
        NicoJuicy 5y ago
        Not everyone uses lightning. I suppose that's what you're insinuating?
beervirus 5y ago
1. Remittance payments were already feasible and happening before they adopted btc officially. 2. They’re not cheaper than other methods. They’re more expensive.
- vernon99 5y ago
  I think in thia case remittance is more of a way to create organic currency supply for btc. If you have btc from your son and the store owner you buy your fruits from has some btc from his son, why not to use btc for trade? Currency has a gigantic network effect and this is seeding the network. It’s not about the remittance per se.
  - beervirus 5y ago
    >It’s not about the remittance per se Exactly my point.
Aunche 5y ago
Bitcoin doesn't solve the remittance problem any more than any government subsidized app solves it. People still end up using dollars for buy things with. This means for imported goods, dollars still leaves your country. However, only Bitcoins are coming into your country, so government ends up being a bigger and bigger bagholder.
el-salvador 5y ago
This may work for smaller payments <$10, like when I had to split a restaurant bill with a foreign friend and paid him using the lightning network. (I wasn't carrying cash, and she no longer had a bank account in El Salvador, and other options would have been more expensive). What I've seen is that Salvadorans in the U.S., that have bought or sent bitcoin using their U.S. credit/cards with the Chivo Wallet App based in El Salvador, is that have been hit by 1%-3% foreign transaction fees or cash advance fees from their U.S. banks. So for some larger amounts it may end up being more expensive than a normal remittance.
- Passthepeas 5y ago
  I'm sad to hear that, I have been optimistic about this helping people actually. Good news is that there are other options besides Chivo, so hopefully conditions improve as the market develops.
davidgerard 5y ago
author here. It got dropped for space reasons (it's overlength already), but Chivo didn't get US money transmitter licenses in order as yet, so sending remittances over Chivo is attracting conversion fees from people's banks, even as Chivo doesn't charge them. I mostly think of Chivo as a real wasted opportunity as a payments system. A government-backed electronic dollar system that worked well, and which subsidised remittances from the US, could have been excellent for El Salvador. Instead they came up with semifunctional rubbish with a massive fraud scandal. I believe the previous Chivo developers have been fired and a new team is being hired (based on LinkedIn job ads). Trying to find out more about this.

dundarious 5y ago

Why are retailers forced to support BTC transactions if that is not a key part of the adoption?

el-salvador 5y ago
Based from what I've seen form the rule of law system in El Salvador for the past months... That the most possible answer is that... Someone from the government tweeted or said that they had to do it on a tv interview, otherwise they would officially face fines or perhaps closures.
- dundarious 5y ago
  Yeah, isn't it a legal requirement subject to penalties, as you say? Then surely it's fair to measure success of the program on those terms as well -- i.e., is it being used as a currency for daily life? The answer is seemingly not (for technical, social, and speculation reasons), meaning it's fair to comment that this part of the project seems to be a failure. OP can't carve off criticisms they don't like or _personally_ care about.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

NicoJuicy 5y ago

What would the problem be to use Transferwise?

randomhodler84 5y ago
Cost! And speed! I did a transfer wise last week and it cost me $15 in fees. What is this, ethereum?(a joke cos ethereum is too expensive to be useful for the retail user). I could have sent BTC and it would have been quicker and cheaper.
- beervirus 5y ago
  $15 is right in line with current btc transaction fees. Maybe a tiny bit higher, but not much.
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    No it isn’t. You are making this up. A BTC tx costs $0.07 1 sat/vbyte (mempool.space) right now.
    - beervirus 5y ago
      I’m looking at this: https://bitcoinfees.co/ https://bitcoinfees.co/
      - randomhodler84 5y ago
        Wow. That site is very wrong. Their historical data is wrong too. It’s all the same value!! It’s about 100x off reality. It’s been known since 2020 that it is fiction. Bitcoinfees.net appears to be correct (1-2 sats/vB). https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/ https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/ Also shows vast majority in last 24 hours paid <10sats/vB. I notice that earn is also reporting way way too high numbers. The fact is you can send 1sat/vbyte right now and it will confirm. 7 cents. Anyone actually using BTC will agree with me here. Look at the mempool. If it’s empty, BTC is super cheap. It is empty right now and frequently is on weekends.
        NicoJuicy 5y ago
        Not everyone uses lightning. I suppose that's what you're insinuating?

beervirus 5y ago

1. Remittance payments were already feasible and happening before they adopted btc officially. 2. They’re not cheaper than other methods. They’re more expensive.

vernon99 5y ago
I think in thia case remittance is more of a way to create organic currency supply for btc. If you have btc from your son and the store owner you buy your fruits from has some btc from his son, why not to use btc for trade? Currency has a gigantic network effect and this is seeding the network. It’s not about the remittance per se.
- beervirus 5y ago
  >It’s not about the remittance per se Exactly my point.

Aunche 5y ago

Bitcoin doesn't solve the remittance problem any more than any government subsidized app solves it. People still end up using dollars for buy things with. This means for imported goods, dollars still leaves your country. However, only Bitcoins are coming into your country, so government ends up being a bigger and bigger bagholder.

el-salvador 5y ago

This may work for smaller payments <$10, like when I had to split a restaurant bill with a foreign friend and paid him using the lightning network. (I wasn't carrying cash, and she no longer had a bank account in El Salvador, and other options would have been more expensive). What I've seen is that Salvadorans in the U.S., that have bought or sent bitcoin using their U.S. credit/cards with the Chivo Wallet App based in El Salvador, is that have been hit by 1%-3% foreign transaction fees or cash advance fees from their U.S. banks. So for some larger amounts it may end up being more expensive than a normal remittance.

Passthepeas 5y ago
I'm sad to hear that, I have been optimistic about this helping people actually. Good news is that there are other options besides Chivo, so hopefully conditions improve as the market develops.

davidgerard 5y ago

author here. It got dropped for space reasons (it's overlength already), but Chivo didn't get US money transmitter licenses in order as yet, so sending remittances over Chivo is attracting conversion fees from people's banks, even as Chivo doesn't charge them. I mostly think of Chivo as a real wasted opportunity as a payments system. A government-backed electronic dollar system that worked well, and which subsidised remittances from the US, could have been excellent for El Salvador. Instead they came up with semifunctional rubbish with a massive fraud scandal. I believe the previous Chivo developers have been fired and a new team is being hired (based on LinkedIn job ads). Trying to find out more about this.