this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
516 points (98.0% liked)

World News

32992 readers
1092 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bali@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago
[–] mukt@lemmy.ml 20 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I generally keep out of crypto discussions as I do not sufficiently understand it. But this event is very easy to understand. In the beginning of the article itself:

... approved last Wednesday a confusing reform to the Bitcoin Law at the request of Bukele’s government, which had no other option to receive the $1.4 billion credit agreed in December with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Thus, this move was forced on El Salvador by the IMF.

[–] FolknForage@lemm.ee 8 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

“Forced” is doing a lot of work here. I think it was El Salvador that decided it was worth to ditch btc in favor of getting actual rescue money.

Edit: it makes sense that Bukele just told Rubio they’d be happy to be the US’ offshore prison system. Seems they really need the money.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I had a Libertarian try to tell me that this was going to revitalize El Salvador just a couple of weeks ago, lmao.

[–] FolknForage@lemm.ee 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

It’s absolutely bonkers to me that Libertarians think BTC is a better option that fiat bills.

This shit has the have been astroturfed or otherwise psyop’d.

[–] Mangoholic@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Well their reserves doubled in value

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Mods are probably preemptively blacklisting this article and similar articles to avoid inconvenient information reaching the cryptobros. From a cursory glance, both of those subs seem pretty overwhelmingly biased towards being pro-crypto.

[–] FolknForage@lemm.ee 2 points 22 hours ago

It would hurt their feefees

[–] 3dmvr@lemm.ee 3 points 23 hours ago

the buttcoin sub is decent

[–] Juice@midwest.social 22 points 1 day ago

Who could have predicted this

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Bitcoin has gone up by at least 40k in the last three months, surely that must have made El Salvador a few pretty pennies.

[–] astral_avocado@lemm.ee 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

It has but bukele's bitcoin fund is still a drop in the bucket compared to their GDP. I'm seeing they own 6,055 bitcoins, which is about 600 million dollars, to their GDP which is 34 billion.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 22 points 1 day ago

Looking forward to them establishing monero as a legal tender

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 95 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Bitcoin isn't good for making little purchases, firstly because it takes so long to get confirmations, if each block is 10 minutes and you need like 3 blocks to consider it confirmed that's 30 minutes. But that ties into the second issue which is that you probably don't want millions of tiny transactions on the Blockchain, you want them processed off-chain and then settled in bulk (to the Blockchain) periodically as a single transaction.

[–] blandfordforever@lemm.ee 41 points 1 day ago

Finally someone who knows what theyre talking about, with an actual valid criticism.

[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Bitcoin is great for little transactions if you use the lightning network. Sending on the lightning network means instant payments with no confirmation required and absolutely tiny fees. And the only thing that shows up on the blockchain is the transactions to initially start using lightning network and to take your coins back off the lightning network. Transactions made over the lightning network aren't recorded anywhere other than maybe by the people transacting.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 59 points 1 day ago (9 children)

"Bitcoin is great if you don't use the block chain"

That's what you just said. So why even use it in the first place?

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

the lightning network still uses the blockchain, just less. it's acts like an immutable public bar tab you can't default on. once you have spent enough with another person that it is worth them conducting the transaction on chain then it does it. usually when fees are low too.

That is an extremely simplified explanation of how it works though, it is more complex than that.

Edit: another analogy i have just read is it's like cashing in at a casino. you put some money in the house (the blockchain) and get some chips, you go in and transact with loads of people, then when it's advantageous you can cash out and get your BTC on chain; to the house that is two transactions, cash in and then out, rather than a transaction for everyone you exchanged with on the network. that's probs a better analogy than the bar tab one... but again, oversimplified

bar tab is more accurate, casino is easier to understand.

the actual functionality doesn't really matter to the layperson though. basically, you put some of your bitcoin on the network (minimum amounts apply), and then you can spend that with very fast transactions and low fees. when you're ready you can send what you have back to the chain

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Stil though, how well does that work with a rapidly fluctuating value of the bitcoin? Prices would have to be superfluid for external good to have known value of some sort.

Stability of the value of savings and currency seems crucial to using it for trade.

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 1 points 4 hours ago

It'll settle eventually

[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You still use it as a settlement and security layer. The lightning network is made up of pairs of people that both lock money in a new account with a transaction. Both people get a fully signed copy of a second transaction to reclaim the money, but they don't publish it immediately. If they need to make a new transaction between each other, they just replace the second fully signed transaction with a new one that divides the money according to the new balance. They can do this as many times as they want for as long as they want, and they only have to make two transactions: one to start and one to stop. If anyone tries to cheat, the only thing they can do is publish an older version of that second transaction that favors them, but you have... I think a day or three, I forget, to publish a newer version that proves they cheated, and if you do, you get ALL the money even if some was owed to them, so cheating won't go well. The down side is you need a node that's always online or connects to the network frequently so you can be ready to catch a cheater.

To make a network, they use some fancy cryptography to send money to someone if and only if they send it (minus very, very, very small fees) to the next person in line towards the destination. If anyone in the chain refuses or fails to commit, the transaction fails and no money moves at all. Because it's all secured by the blockchain, you can trust that everyone both can and will complete the transaction exactly as requested, or the whole thing fails and nothing happens.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You realize "it's so energy and time consuming that we had to create a secondary layer to try and make it actually usable" isn't the defense you think it is, right?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

i got back into bitcoin recently and decided to move the contents of my old wallet to a new SegWit one and look into using lightning.

To open a lightning channel i have to stake £170 up front though which is crazy, how are people in poorer countries supposed to do that?

or even here. poverty is on the rise, a lot of people are living hand to mouth and just having that kind of money lying around isnt a thing.

i like the idea of bitcoin but i worry it doesn't scale well.

Add to that that virtually nowhere accepts it. The value of bitcoin comes from its use as a currency. if it doesn't have that then it's entirely speculation.

oh well, i have £2k in there and i'm not turning it back into fiat. I'll spend it if i can or ride it all the way to 0 if that's the way it goes

edit: if BTC does hit $1m a coin as the hodlers hope then that would amount to $2000 to open a lightning channel (or more realistically $2400 as electrum wouldnt let me open a channel with the supposed minimum 0.002 BTC, i had to make it 0.0024). I hope that the minimum amount to open a channel will be updated long before that happens though, but i guess we'll see

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)

They could’ve solved that by making the block size larger, but instead did some weird ass replace-by-fee system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 day ago

The only surprise here is that they stuck with it for as long as they did.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 21 points 1 day ago
[–] Allero@lemmy.today 52 points 1 day ago (13 children)

Let's not get astray here.

The reason El Salvador stopped using Bitcoin as a legal tender is not because it's some sort of failed experiment (it had issues, but still), but due to continuous pressure of IMF interested in maintaining a US dollar-centric economy.

El Salvador is reliant on US dollars in its economy, which puts it under heavy US influence. Knowing Salvadoran currency wouldn't be strong, Nayib Bukele suggested an alternative option - risky, volatile, but free from pressure of other countries and strongly appreciating in the long run. IMF didn't like it, and that's where we are.

So, when you cheer Bitcoin not being legal tender anymore, you also cheer US and IMF projecting power over the country.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 44 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

Its even funnier. They just straight up promised them a billion dollar loan on the condition that they abandon bitcoin.

In December, the government struck a $1.4 billion loan deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that scaled back its bitcoin embrace after the lender urged officials to limit its exposure. The lender specifically advocated making acceptance of bitcoin voluntary for the private sector, which is spelled out in the hastily-approved law.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/lawmakers-el-salvador-rush-new-bitcoin-reform-after-imf-deal-2025-01-30/

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hot damn why is this not the headline we are seeing

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)

Well, also, they just cut a deal with Marco Rubio to be America’s prison, so they must’ve figured that was more lucrative than Bitcoin and continuing to agitate the US by challenging the dollar was creating unnecessary friction.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] panchobarnes@lemm.ee 33 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

The IMF wouldn't give them a credit unless they stopped forcing people to accept Bitcoin as payment, which almost no one was using anyway.

officials ensure that the government will continue betting on this cryptocurrency, whose price currently exceeds $100,000.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The government, she assured, will continue buying bitcoin and having reserves in this cryptocurrency. According to the National Bitcoin Office, El Salvador has 6,050 bitcoins worth $634.8 million. “President Bukele continues buying bitcoin, we have a Bitcoin Office, we have the Bitcoin Law, bitcoin can be used in El Salvador.

They're going to have the US by the balls like Saudi Arabia when bitcoin crosses $1mm/coin

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

how do you even liquidate that?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You mean if its worth hundreds of millions or trillions?

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes, even a relatively small quantity like 100k?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That's easy. Ive sold that much. Just do it on an exchange. Get over a million and you do it OTC.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 3 hours ago

Over the counter. Big exchanges offer this. Basically p2p with escrow.

Its done off exchange (though usually the same price). To prevent the trade from changing the market.

[–] context@hexbear.net 42 points 1 day ago (34 children)

i remember laughing at crypto nerds about this a few years ago, but who's laughing now?

me, still

load more comments (34 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›