I believe that everyone's government strategy will not be the same. While some talk about Bitcoin accumulation in public, there are many who prefer to keep it private. Maybe when they can fulfill their expectations from Bitcoin they can come to the front and reveal them. I think what El Salvador has done is commendable and so far the only country in the world to have been the first to approve Bitcoin legal tender.

We will see the value of Bitcoin at $100k in the future but its value will continue to increase. Because the state of Bitcoin in 2021 and the current state are not the same. The influx of institutional investors as well as general investors from around the world will quickly make the coin more valuable. Also, governments are secretly accumulating bitcoins even if they don't come out in the open. That's why it's not difficult for Bitcoin to be worth $100k. There is no certainty where the price of Bitcoin has gone in just 2 weeks and it will not cross 100k in the next few days. It is better to prepare in advance for any situation in the market at any time. But in general, what we have realized in the last four years is that it is going up in price over time, so it is certain that the price of Bitcoin will increase in the coming days.

If we consider since the discovery of Bitcoin till the present time, the price of Bitcoin is constantly increasing. If it were the case that after a halving the price of Bitcoin fell back to the previous position that is different. The change in bitcoin price we have seen since 2020 has been greater than in 2021 and may be greater than expected in 2024 and 2025. Of course we will see Bitcoin turn bullish. That's why only those who hold Bitcoin will benefit from Bitcoin. The country of El Salvador will surely set the example in Bitcoin accumulation that will surely reveal in the future.

To the extent that we are getting into the weeds of who said what, I doubt that I am making any kinds of strong claim, except that I was responding to you and trying to suggest that you should be more specific in regards to what the fuck you are talking about since you seemed to have had been hesitant or perhaps trying to mislead in your failure/refusal to use the word bitcoin.  Whatever points that I made in regards to whether or not El Salvador may or may not be potentially friendly to shitcoins is sort of a side issue, since the main point is that they made bitcoin legal tender and when we are talking about El Salvador and "crypto" or blockchain, we likely need not even use those dumbass, vague and frequently misleading terms and start out by at least talking about bitcoin and if we want to talk about shitcoins or blockchain or anything else, then at least if we frame our discussion in light of how it may relate to bitcoin, then at least we might have some chance of at least staying on the topic of the thread... to the extent that you perhaps might have similar goals to stay on the topic of the thread rather than distracting us into vague, nonsense and/or misleading talk about shitcoin or blockchain or whatever potentially somewhat relevant points that you might have been wanting to make.


I am glad that you know the difference, so then your bringing it up, being vague and shifty about it, might go to show that you are purposefully trying to distract us from this topic, like trolls do..  Hopefully, you are not a troll and you will then at least attempt to stay on topic and not drag us into talk about nonsense.  If that might even be possible with you.


We are not talking about crypto in this thread.  Fuck crypto, and if our topic here is not about crypto then why does it matter that you might happen to have a lot of experience and/or knowledge about such topic?


Your saying that you know stuff doesn't bring us back to the topic of the thread, and you were making some vague ass predictions to suggest that El Salvador may be in a bad place since bitcoin (and maybe you suggested crypto?) is going down before up.. blah blah blah...


What accusations are being made? That you don't seem to know anything?  Who cares whether you know things or not?  The main point that it seems I started out with was for you to be more specific in what you were saying, to use the word bitcoin and to try to stay on topic of the thread.  Sure, I might not have had said it exactly like that, but still those were my main points in regards to what I had read from your initial chiming in post.


I am not competing with anyone, and I am not claiming to know anything - except maybe I know that you did not use the word bitcoin in your post, and you made vague references to crypto and to blockchain, which seem to be ambiguous at best, and perhaps misleading if you are purposefully using such vague language even though you are claiming to understand what is bitcoin and purportedly you are also understanding that this thread is about bitcoin and El Salvador made Bitcoin legal tender, not blockchain or crypto..


I don't even know what you are talking about what was promoted on other forums? Bitcoin? Something related to El Salvador's adoption of bitcoin, or something else?


You could start a thread.  Sure there is no problem bringing up some personal matters when we are posting in threads, but we should at least attempt to stay somewhat on topic of the thread. 

In regards to personal financial problems, or even investing in bitcoin and then having to sell all of it due to expenses, these kinds of things can happen to anyone, and perhaps it is more likely to have emergencies if you are using money that you cannot afford to lose, so you might be contributing to your own emergency if you are using money that you need to buy bitcoin.  You already said that you don't have much if any income, so maybe you are putting money into bitcoin as a way to gamble rather than invest, and if you do not have at least a 4 year timeline, the probably you should be careful about any amount of money you put into bitcoin... the same is true for institutions and governments. There is a need to invest only from discretionary income, not money that is needed for short term expenses or could be needed in the relative short term, such as less than 4 years.

People do sometimes try to overly romanticize facts and history, and surely Bukele was buying at the top and the bottom and even sometimes pausing at the bottom of the 2022 crash (if we might call it that), and Saylor was the same.  The bear markets can be very difficult to continue buying and/or to be arrogant or smug about our investing into bitcoin.. All bitcoiners appear to be like fools during a bear market.

So yeah, Bukele had something like a $40k average cost per BTC, and I am not sure what the average cost per BTC is currently, yet surely ongoing buying of BTC, even if less aggressive at times, does end up paying off, especially if there is ONLY buying and not much if any selling (except maybe spend and replace).

Getting through a whole bitcoin cycle (of 4 years) does tend to vindicate those who had been ongoingly buying bitcoin through such cycle, and sure it is not guaranteed to be profitable, but so far such ongoing accumulation strategy has been working out to be a pretty decently good strategy (especially for folks, institutions and governments who have been doing so for at least a whole cycle), and there is no real reason to speculate that such ongoing buying of BTC is not going to continue to work in a p[prosperous way, even or someone just coming to bitcoin now (and yeah of course, no guarantees, so each of us has to figure out our own position size and also take responsibiltiy for our own decisions whether or not to buy, how to do it and what position sizes to aim for).

El Salvador is getting its first tokenized US Treasury offering

Tokenized U.S. Treasuries are a booming market, and now they are coming to the nascent crypto hub of El Salvador.
NexBridge Digital Financial Solutions S.A de C.V, a digital asset issuer based in El Salvador that recently won digital asset service license from local regulators, has teamed up with Bitfinex Securities to offer the first regulated public tokenized T-Bill offering in the country.
>>> https://www.coindesk.com/business/2024/11/19/el-salvador-is-getting-its-first-tokenized-us-treasuries-offering/

Although this news is from several months ago, It clearly states that even though El Salvador's Bitcoin holdings have increased by over 50%, they are not ready to sell Bitcoin. This means that their thinking is far-reaching and that they will buy and hold their bitcoins for a longer period of time. Moreover, even after the IMF imposed a ban on the adoption of Bitcoin by this company, they held on to Bitcoin and regularly purchased Bitcoin. El Salvador continues to buy bitcoins regularly despite all obstacles.

I didn't want to create a separate thread, so I 'll ask here.

According to this article from last year:


So, the question is very simple: Who holds the bitcoin keys? I reckon that inside the vault there is a backup of the seedphrase and the hardware device itself. So essentially in this situation, Bitcoin is stored kind of like Gold, isn't it?


P.S Excuse me if it's already been mentioned in the thread! If so, please lead me there because the thread is too big.

https://x.com/nayibbukele/status/1768425845163503738?t=-AX4eBBhC76Skaz_-JVWFA&s=19

The source of that information is the X account of Nayib Bukele. There is no details about who holds the keys or how it is secured. Maybe it's is a classified information. However, since it is a national asset, I assume that it should be in the custody of the Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador. I am just wondering why you need such information  .

I am answering both of you guys.

Bitcoin self-custody shouldn't be complicated.
Even at a national level, making a backup should be the same as an individual would do, otherwise a custom setup could be proven dangerous.
Let's assume that they have a vault and inside the vault they keep a seed phrase (and ?) a hardware device.
This setup is exactly like keeping a gold bar inside the vault.

But... There are significant issues here...

(1) The person who created the wallet could have noted the words, so they can steal the money without ever visiting the vault again.
(2) Unlike gold, bitcoin secured in a vault can be stolen without ever moving what's inside the vault.

That's why I am asking and I know we can't have such exact information, but it looks tricky and perhaps dangerous to me.

Hello JayJuanGee, yes, I thought a multi-sig would be most optimal for this purpose.

There is not a way to tell whether this address: 32ixEdVJWo3kmvJGMTZq5jAQVZZeuwnqzo derives from a multi-sig or a single-sig wallet.

Once this address is used though, we could take the witness script and determine whether it's a multi-sig or not.

For instance, the address 34nYWqkdJpFYQdQjwy9CWVQVycYAQC7cwi was used to fund the address 32ixEdVJWo3kmvJGMTZq5jAQVZZeuwnqzo.

If you check the transaction details here: https://mempool.space/tx/b88dad13553c4e377a539d7792d8233713ee0f225616faff0d1e5385242cabc5, you can see the witness script:


This script proves that the address used to fund the wallet is a 2-of-3 multisig and the public keys are listed above.

So, I believe that the address that they have made public in their X post, is also a multi-sig address.

Thanks for looking into the matter further and providing some further explanation and some details (and links), which sometimes can become a bit cumbersome to look into, including I sometimes will get confused about what I am looking at or what the information that I see means, even with some things that are supposed to be straight-forward and understandable.

I thought that there were supposed to be various technologies, yet maybe not very well implemented (such as silent payments) that might allow for the showing of public addresses, yet not being able to go back and see so much of the historical information about those addresses, even though surely for a public entity there likely is quite a bit of value regarding transparency of the various amounts, but maybe not so much transparency in regards to how many signatures are required to spend... and I would think that a smaller institution (or individual) might be more suitable for 2 of 3, yet bigger institutions and/or governmental (public) entities would be more suitable for more signatures, such as 3 out of 5, yet I would imagine that there are trade offs for any of the kinds of set ups that might be available, and surely if some public entities might be vulnerable to attack (and/or corruption) and they also might be honey pots that are containing higher amounts of value within some of their wallets, then there would likely be more thought within how they safeguard their private keys and the various rationale that they consider for their private key management options.



Oh gawd @Fivestar4everMVP.      You start your statement our correctly by acknowledging that politicians should not be trusted, but then you state that Trump and his VP have sufficiently shown through their actions to date that they are going to carry out their bitcoin-related campaign promises.

Let's just stick with Trump for now instead of attempting to attribute responsibilities too far down the chain of command, even though surely any US President (including Trump) will rely on various persons around them to carry out their various policy preferences, we still like to consider that the guy at the top has a certain amount of ability to keep their various team members in his preferred direction, whether we are referring to the VP or other advisors or cabinet or departmental agency picks that Trump might make.

I will admit that generally Trump has been seeming to come around to bitcoin since around early to mid 2024, perhaps right around the time that Vivek Ramaswamy dropped out of the Republican primaries and joined Trump's election campaign team (which Ramaswamy dropped out right around mid-January 2024).  We cannot necessarily know all of the backroom developments and discussions, yet since early 2024, many of us had likely been noticing Trump move towards more and more bitcoin (and crypto) friendly kinds of assertions in his talks and even in some of his various background position papers, and there were criticisms of various monetary policies and even strong statements against central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) which truly those kinds of statements resonated strongly within the bitcoin community, within shitcoin spaces and also beyond bitcoin and crypto.

So far, Trump and his team have not seemed to back away from several aspects of the pro-bitcoin angle including a very large number of his appointees seem to have a pro-bitcoin angle.. not just shitcoiners, even though there is a kind of shitcoining angle that seems to be in the current Trump mix that is ambiguous, yet I agree with quite a bit of your overall statement that Trump's actions seem to show that he is not really backing off of the pro-bitcoin angle and even a kind of angle that is way less hostile to bitcoin (which seems to also be less hostile to shitcoins too.. which could be a problematic area to be too friendly to shitcoins.. yet we will see?) .. .

It seems to me that even people who support Trump recognize and appreciate that he does not have a very good track record when it comes to either truth telling or even staying behind certain directions that he might take, unless he is able to perceive his direction from a very personal (and even a childish and narcissistic) point of view.  Trump tends to be a liar, whiner and a bully when he can get away with it, and truly he has gotten away with a lot of things and has not been held accountable, and so Trump tends to bring a certain amount of his own drama, so it could be difficult to know if he is going to be able to stay on a path that bitcoiners consider to be sufficiently focused and not ending up overly contributing to chaos that back fires on bitcoiners, yet even an atmosphere that might be chaotic may well give bitcoiners several more years to develop (presuming that Trump is able to stay in office for several years, perhaps 4 years and not screw things up too badly). 

I would take with a grain of salt that any of us should just be believing in that diptwat Trump, even if he seems to have been getting on a better path since around early 2024 in regards to his seeming learning about bitcoin (combined with his convoluting shitcoin ideas in the mix of ongoing ambiguity - which who knows if some of that might be 3D (or is it 5D?) chess?)
 
Surely I have no problem with the idea of you (Fivestar4everMVP) or anyone else considering Trump to be on the right course in regards to bitcoin, yet even you should be able to recognize problems with blindly believing any politician (as you mentioned) and especially Trump does not have the greatest of track records in regards to his own behaviors and seeming lack of discipline... except he is a good whiner who has been able to get support from quite a few seemingly smart and innovative people within his current circle..to the extent that he (Trump) does not end up screwing things up, which he has a pretty good track record of screwing things up too.. it seems to be a part of his ongoing getting attention brand.


Your numbers seem to be be a bit off in regards to El Salvador's current paper bitcoin profits Fivestar4everMVP.  Their total Bitcoin stash is less than $600 million, but yeah, sure it could end up going up in value, and sure they may well be close to 200%  up in terms of profits in regards to their actual BTC stash.

For sure, El Salvador's profit from bitcoin goes beyond merely the size of the BTC stash that the government has amassed in the past 3.5 years-ish, but there seems to be value in their permissiveness towards bitcoin which has been incentivizing bitcoin development in the country and even the flourishing of other aspects of their society based on pro-active and positive focusing on bitcoin.. which may also have had contributed to their wanting to improve safety (and perceptions of safety) within the country  - which also has some likely beneficial economic values, even though there also may be some controversies in regards to whether some due process principles might have had been stepped on "for the greater good."

I also read it here https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/el-salvadors-bukele-floats-plan-to-rent-volcanoes-for-bitcoin-mining . It's a great move, bukele. With the current conditions, he has recorded profits from his policies. I don't understand how the economic problems are in detail, but I think he should start making concrete steps for the effects of his policies to be felt by the wider community. The reason is to attract people's interest to use crypto more. The reason is that currently I hear that people and even hotels and restaurants still rarely use Bitcoin as a transaction. I think if more users believe it, it will benefit El Salvador. This seems to be better than reissuing debt, the project has a greater impact than creating new debt.

Source:

1. https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/el-salvadors-bukele-floats-plan-to-rent-volcanoes-for-bitcoin-mining
2. https://news.bitcoin.com/latam-insights-el-salvadors-bitcoin-debt-idea-mileis-maga/