[remarkEon]

A lot of these Bitcoin threads get old. The detractors, the pumpers, the bag hodlers ... it's all so tiresome.

Here's something I want answered (all three parties are invited to respond): Is there a dependency on mature internet infrastructure that exists for a country to adopt BTC as its currency? Seems like there is to me, but maybe I'm not fully appreciating how this works or am overestimating the connectivity requirements for running BTC at scale in a modern economy.

[erulabs]

I agree strongly with the tiresome comment, and I am a bag holder and have been interested in monetary policy and economics my entire life - but not enough to read the same 10 comments over and over every day.

In answer to your question, technically no, but realistically yes.

Technically, BTC “transactions” can happen "on paper", the keys can be physically handed off to each other, etc (there are plenty of possible answers here that are all fairly vague and hand-wavey). There are many problems with this that make it wildly impractical though (see replies to this comment).

In reality, El Salvador (if I've understood correctly) was going to use a lightning "side-chain" for dramatically faster and cheaper transactions - this would require connecting to a known (and centralized) main service. I would guess though that this isn't exactly intended to replace their currency as a day-to-day usage, but rather for large transactions (like the down payment on real-estate) which is already an "internet-strictly-required" transaction, even in developing nations.

I hope that answers the question - if BTC was meant as a replacement for buying a can of coke, you'd be 100% correct that the internet infrastructure is nowhere near sufficient - but despite what the "I hate bitcoin so much my mouth is foaming" and the "my entire life depends on the price going up" crowds say, BTC is not being suggested as the only currency for El Salvador, just as "legal tender" as an alternative option for its citizens to store their wealth in a system that is not controlled by banks that are outside of El Salvador. Personally, I think it's quite nice that developing nations now have a lever they can use against, for example, the World Bank.

[xiphias2]

> Technically, BTC “transactions” can happen "on paper", the keys can be physically handed off to each other, etc (there are plenty of possible answers here that are all fairly vague and hand-wavey). There are many problems with this that make it wildly impractical though (see replies to this comment).

For large transactions using microSD cards is the recommended way actually. There are multiple hardware wallets that support partially signed bitcoin transactions (PSBT), and using SD cards both make it easier to verify the communication between the signing device and the Bitcoin network, and make it easier to sign the transactions using multisig at multiple different locations before publishing them on the network.

[squabble]

You're wrong about lightening. It costs a fraction of a cent per transaction and is meant for everyday transactions. For very large transactions, it is wiser to use the main BTC network since there is lower risk.

Edit: I'm forbidden to reply but not to edit, so I'll reply to your comment below here.

Reply: Yes. The thing you were wrong about was that lightning is not meant for everyday transactions. It actually is.

[erulabs]

Yes I agree with the cost and speed (which I mentioned) however lightning does require being connected over the internet.

[remarkEon]

Great comment, thanks. Yeah, I'm kind of beyond talking about the philosphy of Bitcoin or crypto or monetary policy on this website. Too much FUD and flamebait and all that. Maybe it'll die down in the future. Still, I find the technical questions of "suppose we wanted to 'do BTC' how would we do it?" interesting.

[squabble]

You're wrong about BTC transactions happening on physical paper with no connection to the network. It's not possible.

[erulabs]

Technically yes, a “transaction” is on-network - but one can trade wallets (eg: trading paper keys or “Physical bitcoins”). The definition of the word “transaction” is the important bit here.

[squabble]

You can give me the private key to a wallet, but if I'm not connected to the network to see how much money it controls, that's not much good. Even if I trust you temporarily, at some point a network connection is required. Otherwise, it doesn't have anything to do with BTC.

Edit: Additionally, as someone else pointed out, you could have kept your own copy of the key and could empty the wallet before me.

[erulabs]

Some physical Bitcoin products solve that too - but I agree completely with you here. That’s why I made it clear that it’s only -technically- possible, but not remotely practical.

[itsdsmurrell]

Yep, dead wrong. If you hand someone a private key, you now both have control of those coins.

[erulabs]

They’re impractical, but checkout Physical bitcoins: https://medium.com/the-capital/everything-you-need-to-know-a...

I did say -technically- and I do mean that - I’m not suggesting this is practical.

[tracedddd]

I don’t believe there is such a requirement. I suppose it depends how deep of an integration you’re imagining. At the no-tech level you can simply have crypto backed redeemable notes - like the old gold standard.

There are also things like M Pesa/MobileMoney which have half a billion users in sub Saharan Africa. Simply an account balance held by telcos, accessible from any GSM phone. It’s custodial but could easily swap in crypto and extend to the rest of the network if there was a movement to do so.

But even without all that, vanilla crypto transactions don’t really take much bandwidth. You do need a connection of some sort but just running a light client is not very demanding by any means.

[jollybean]

" At the no-tech level you can simply have crypto backed redeemable notes - like the old gold standard."

If the government had any credibility whatsoever, the could already do this with any number of backing mechanisms.

If they want to 'go hard' they can buy gold.

Their plan is to mine BTC for solvency anyhow - mine some BTC, buy gold, and voila - reserves.

But realistically, if they were competent enough for that, they could also issue a well managed fiat, which would allow them to be much more nimble.

The 'tech' required for those who can use it should not be that hard, much easier than BTC. BTC 'wallets' are not really suitable for regular consumer consumption anyhow.

The point is, none of this has to do with BTC it has to with the credibility of the government, which is very limited.

If they sorted out their leadership, not only would they have a sound monetary system ... they'd have a sound financial and legal system and a healthy country overall.

[kemonocode]

Mature internet infrastructure? No. Only perhaps if you want a whole bunch of validating (full) nodes, and only then for the initial bootstrapping and the whole hassle of downloading the entire blockchain up to that point, but past that, even for non-custodial wallets (AKA your keys therefore your coins), broadcasting a transaction takes very little.

For context, I'm running a full node from Venezuela. The initial bootstrapping was... painful, but keeping up with the rest of the network doesn't take much.

[nroets]

So a buyer can pay a seller in Bitcoin with minimal internet connection.

Note that the volatility of Bitcoin introduces a another requirement: Both parties also need fairly recent data from a Bitcoin exchange to find a price at which the transaction is mutually beneficial.

[lugged]

There is, along with all other modern forms of commerce, jit, logistics, and delivery systems.

If your argument is btc doesn't work without the internet, you should keep in mind that nothing else does either.

[squabble]

In theory, only the person recieving payment needs a trusted connection to the network. The person sending a payment just needs a device which can cryptographically sign a "check" addressed to the reciever, and then send the "check" to the reciever who can send it to the network and wait for it to be accepted.

[senectus1]

not really. Just an internet connection.

of course the more people that adopt it means the more people needs a reliable internet connection. so if you go from 35% of the population with reliable internet to 80% of the population wanting to/being forced to use BTC then you may have a maturity issue...

[squabble]

I believe internet is required. It doesn't need to be fast or high bandwidth.

[jl2718]

You can always issue centralized physical bearer notes like cash.