This seems to be a great one for the cryptocurrency - accepting it as legal but then I thought the decision has caused some controversy and criticism to be raised. I think some experts expressed concerns over the volatility and potential risks associated with cryptocurrencies. We know how this can affect the people if it goes wrong than planned right?
Why don't you start by rephrasing your response to talk about bitcoin?
El Salvador is not approving or otherwise getting involved in cryptocurrencies or shitcoins, even though surely shitcoins follow bitcoin around and engage in all kinds of affinity scams where bitcoin is involved, but maybe if you (oktana) could at least focus your use of terms a wee bit better, then we might be able to figure out if you realize that there is a difference between bitcoin and shitcoins and to be able to focus your participation in this discussion a bit better. Are you able to do it? Are you able to clarify your language so that we know that you are talking about bitcoin rather than some vague thing that is not made clear in your response?
That's one of the problems of most individuals. They always want to use general or vague terms to discuss the specific issue of bitcoin. Many scammers in the cryptocurrency space have always used these vague terms to deceive people and steal funds from them. I have been invited to a seminar in which the organizers used the bitcoin logo to attract participants and when I got to this seminar they were just discussing shitcoins. The organizers began to convince the audience that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are the same and that the difference is just the name. But this forum helped me to understand the uniqueness and superiority of bitcoin.
Some people are purposefully trying to use vague language or to obfuscate what they are talking about or to engage in a kind of affinity scam (which is acting like they are either the same as bitcoin, similar to bitcoin or even sometimes superior to bitcoin), and other people do not even realize that convoluting and intermixing such terms.. which sometimes will either go to show that they do not even understand the topic sufficiently or maybe that they are not trying hard enough to understand the topic.
I am not going to completely blame folks for their use of vague language, unless they continue to persist and argue about it, and sometimes we will get members persisting and arguing about their use of language or even trying to defend their vague use of language by saying "everybody else does it" or "I was just citing from the article or the video clip, blah blah blah."
This seems to be a great one for the cryptocurrency - accepting it as legal but then I thought the decision has caused some controversy and criticism to be raised. I think some experts expressed concerns over the volatility and potential risks associated with cryptocurrencies. We know how this can affect the people if it goes wrong than planned right?
What is going wrong here, El-Savador is not going to be affected alone if bitcoin fails, the whole world will be, but the goodnews is that bitcoin can't fail, no amount of critics can pull a decentralized network down, not even the IMF, SEC, EU, US, China etc. just name it, bitcoin has over powered them all by being decentralized and blockchain immutable, they can regulate other cryptos but not bitcoin, stop allowing people who were so confused from understanding what volatility means to deceive and stop you from partaking in this awesome opportunity with bitcoin, those that were doubting it some years back are regretting why they had not invested then, it's a currency and not a commodity or stock you buy, trade and it overdue, bitcoin is a legal digital currency.
I don't really disagree with you Doan9269; however, I do believe that you are overstating the resilience and the inevitability of bitcoin. Of course, bitcoin was built to be able to operate through various kinds of strong attacks, including potential government attacks and even coordinated government attacks, but it is not inevitable that bitcoin will survive.
Part of the rationale in regards to investing in bitcoin, even for the bitcoin naysayers is that the possibility that it will fail really dwarfs the various upside scenarios for bitcoin, and surely in a variety of senses bitcoin has already won.. so people can fuck off with their claims that bitcoin has failed because it has already succeeded - nonetheless, there are still questions regarding how bitcoin will play out in the future, including the intensities of various likely inevitable battles along the way of its likely ongoing success to continue to expand and continue to experience number go up attributes.. that also should contribute towards normies, no coiners, low coiners, shitcoin pumpers, bitcoin naysayers and fence sitters to figure out that it is likely best in their interest to invest something into bitcoin (including considering that the most that they could lose is their investment, so long as they do not engage in stupid-ass leveraging and other ways of gambling), and the various upside scenarios are quite stupendous.. which is also could be described as bitcoin continuing to exist as one of the better (if NOT the best) of asymmetric bets to the upside that is available to everyone and anyone no matter how rich you are and whatever happens to be your current status in society.
Building
a biggest prison in Americas for tens of thousands prisoners looks risky: they collect criminals from all the country in one place. If all will go right Salvadorians will remember both anti-gang measures and bitcoin adoption as the time when the country started doing better. But in case of prisoners rebellion... it fears me a bit: too many dangerous people concentrated in one small place. Hope better prognosis will come true, not worse.
I'm probably hardline when it comes to cracking down on organised crime too, but this one I feel went a bit too far. Just arbitrary rounding up of people (from what I read, you got a tattoo, you're gang, so you come with us) and going to prison for the rest of their lives (reading quotes from the politicians suggest that anyway). People do got rights too, and I'm sure there are many caught up in the dragnet.
It's a populist move, but crime coming down might be at the expense of unbridled dictatorship (read, corruption).
I cannot completely disagree with you buwaytress, and there surely is a bit of injustice in terms of potential lack of due process - yet I have my doubts that there is a complete lack of due process, but perhaps a bit of a "desperate times call for desperate measures," and perhaps it takes a long time to process cases, and surely a lot of injustices have likely already occurred due to lack of process and perhaps will continue to keep occurring due to how long that it might take to process cases, and even the fact that some of the lock ups might be on shaky grounds to prevent crimes rather than for crimes that have had already happened.. so yeah, I am bothered by some of those kinds of matters too.. .
And, I am not going to proclaim to know all of the details, and surely I am bothered by the extent of sweeping that seems to have had taken place.. and I would also be concerned about making sure that there might be resources to process cases and to even release folks.. and yeah it is bothersome in regards to merely being in a gang or being affiliated would not generally tend to be enough to cause someone to automatically be guilty of a crime.. and again, I don't claim to know enough of the circumstances to presume that some variation of what Bukele did might have had been justified given the extent of the corruption and shake downs that seemed to have had been taking place on regular folks trying to carry out businesses or to live their regular lives prior to the sweep.
All that bitcoin won't be of any use if one man (or a few) get to decide what to do with it -- remember it was bought with public funds. Need to see proof that those coins are accounted for and transparently audited, with access in hands of the elected.
For sure, Bukele is supposed to be acting within the public interest with public funds that he uses to buy and accumulate bitcoin on behalf of El Salvador, so for sure, it would be a calamity if he were to either rug pull or to escape with the coins - yet at the same time, there may well be a certain level of justification too, in regards to his attempting some levels of secrecy.. especially given the international rhetoric that may well attempt to compromise the security of those coins that he supposedly purchased on behalf of El Salvador.
