[chronicsunshine]

You're telling us people that don't have bank accounts are gonna be using bitcoin in some abstruse way?

Or are you saying some other entity (a bank) will help them with it?

And if the latter, why would bitcoin be of help at all? A normal bank account would be simpler and less worrisome.

[pinkybanana]

Both. Some people (probably minority) will use self-hosted wallets. Majority will use custodials (banks).

> And if the latter, why would bitcoin be of help at all? A normal bank account would be simpler and less worrisome.

USD will still stay as the official currency of El Salvador. However now merchants have to accept also BTC. The hypotheses is that for example foreign businessmen will bring BTC in form of investments to the country, and people will send BTC via remittances. There is possibility that there isn't actual demand, but there is also possibility that El Salvador might get some serious economical boost because of this.

[notafraudster]

The original conversation was about how Bitcoin could help the 70% who are unbanked have access to something like a bank account. The proposed mechanism for this is "well, they can go to a bank and register something like a bank account, or else they can be a high-SES self-educated tech person who builds their own bank using computer hardware". I do not think this could help the 70% who are unbanked have access to something like a bank account.

Whether or not it has spinoff economic benefits in terms of tourism or parking capital flight from other countries, you might be right, but that's not what was being discussed, right?

[KingOfCoders]

I'd also say it's easier to give everyone the right to an account as in Germany (if the reason is that they can't get one b/c of a missing/bad credit history and not because they don't live to a bank and have no phone), to solve the 70% unbanked problem instead of introducing BTC.

[reedjosh]

> The original conversation was about how Bitcoin could help the 70% who are unbanked

And this isn't the best argument for bitcoin. The best argument for it is the limited supply.

Considering the BBC has a dog in the fight, I believe that's probably why it doesn't mention the anti-inflationary argument that is the true reason a country would want to transact in BTC.

The USD is available to the US to make more of at any time. Imagine trying to run your government on someone else's currency. You'd always be at a disadvantage.

In the past the US hegemony has regime changed several countries that tried to use their own currency. (See Lybia)

[WinstonSmith84]

let's not put the cart before the horse? you can't solve the trickiest problem in a day. This news, is a major development and is going to open many, many doors, eventually solving this problem, too