I didn't hear any even a half decent attempt to address the concerns of wallets and volatility in the video. Mostly the volatility response was that the same volatility and devaluation of African currencies that she's hoping will drive people to bitcoin mean that the volatility of bitcoin doesn't matter. ???
I did hear some total bullshit though.
Yep. Bullshit - or 'demonstrably false' if cussing upsets delicate sensibilities. Like this excerpt from the podcast:
"Interestingly, when you look at all the various forms of money that we use today whether it is cash or whether it is the Visa cards for example, Bitcoin consumes the least amount of energy of all of them. In fact, the production of cash and the transportation of cash and the distribution of cash requires 30 times more energy than bitcoin does."
Which aligns rather poorly with reality:
BTC has nearly 3x environmental cost [than cash] per 1$ of value
https://sites.tufts.edu/digitalplanet/how-green-is-the-greenback-an-analysis-of-the-environmental-costs-of-cash-in-the-united-states/
Cash is currently higher in energy consumption overall , but that's only because bitcoin transactions are so comparatively rare. The argument that bitcoin is lower energy cost than cash is therefore demonstrably bullshit false.
No sensibilities were harmed. I was borrowing your text as a sort of header to to my reply.
Yes, there were a couple of quite extreme and unsubstantiated statements re. energy. I'm not defending them. I've steered clear of most of the environmental discussions as the bs-factor looks extremely high on both sides. Bitcoin both eats the world and saves the world, and both sides have endless figures to prove it.
I've glanced at that article and it looks pretty measured. I'll read it properly later - thanks.
"[Bitcoin is] a currency that can be moved easily without creating any extra fees and constraints"
Then she goes on to indicate how there are no conversion fees changing from her currency (franc) to bitcoin [No she didn't - she said no such thing] because it's "free money, and independent currency, a currency that's not created specifically to control people".
Yes she does. Direct quote:
"[Bitcoin is] um a currency that can uh be moved easily without creating any extra fees and constraints to the people because when you look at the countries that face the highest constraints on moving money is the African uh is it the people living in diaspora sending money back home because sometimes the remittance fees go as high as 20 percent consume 30 in both the fees and the uh um um the conversion rate. So at that point I was like uh ah the person or the people who invested Bitcoin of [sic] having free money, having independent currency, a currency that is not created specifically by some people to control others."
She very explicitly talks about the horrors of currency conversion rates when transferring money from African currencies to other denominations to send through banks, and in the same breath talks about how there are no fees associated with Bitcoin. The only conclusion one can reasonably draw from this is that she believes the fees for currency conversion do not exist for Bitcoin. Or that she's intentionally trying to make the traditional banking system seem worse than it is in an effort to push bitcoin.
I took it in the context of people receiving Bitcoin remittances and then spending Bitcoin. No CFA conversion = no conversion fee.
She indicates that 70% of the people in her country do not have bank accounts, and thus would be perfect to convert over to using bitcoin. But she completely glosses over the little point of exactly how to do this. How are they going to convert their current cash holdings into bitcoin? Can't transfer funds from their bank, obviously. Later there's mention of magical technologies that will allow people without phone or computer access to easily and safely access bitcoin without risk. [No there's not - there's no mention of any such thing] I'd like to hear a lot more about that though, since it sounds like bullshit but no further discussion involved that point. Instead she just says that bitcoin is like internet and electricity. And we leave it there.
"I actually forgot to mention one of the uh greatest products that was introduced at the conference is uh manchankura which is uh uh created by an uh amazing Bitcoin and uh developer we call him KG um it actually allows people to buy bitcoin as a USS USSD uh just like regular scratch cards where you can just type USSD codes and then boom you have the bitcoin in your wallet so in amazing solutions are being made and you're like wow this is so cool this is going to make it so much easier for everyone"
Yes, there is regular mention and misrepresentation* of technology that will safely and easily allow African people to access bitcoin. That's the whole underpinning of how the person being interviewed describes the shift to bitcoin happening across the continent.
*It's the misrepresentation that makes the technology 'magical'. Interesting that she fails to mention the 1% fee for anyone using this service. Or the various hosting fees for moving bitcoin from a wallet to create a transaction. Almost like there is a clear pro-bitcoin agenda being pushed.
My point was that she made no claims of '
without phone or computer access' technology.
Well no, she didn't mention the 1% charge, but it was a chat about new 'exciting' things that are happening. Was it a carefully calculated/cunning omission ? I think she was just more interested in describing how people, esp. Africans themselves, are creatively using technology to overcome the many barriers that exist in Africa.
They are both very clearly, explicitly and openly pro-Bitcoin - take it for what it is. Good luck finding much agenda-free stuff in this area.
She also doesn't address how the people who move their fortunes over to bitcoin are supposed to pay their taxes. Or buy groceries. Or buy anything, since bitcoin isn't commonly accepted anywhere in the country. I guess the theory is that everyone will instantly switch over nationally? [No, there was no suggestion of immediate total adoption - people will still have fiat]
But then bitcoin would solve no problem at all. All of the pie in the sky bitcoin related 'freedom' that is being discussed for African people being held hostage by their fiat currency fails to materialize if the people are still being held hostage by their fiat currency.
I just don't get this all or nothing theory. Her goal for Togo is displace the CFA, but not in one fell swoop - as you noted, how on earth would/could that work ?
A gradual transition seems perfectly logical and possible. Some people start to acquire Bitcoin. Some shops start to see value in accepting Bitcoin. More people start to acquire Bitcoin. More shops start to . . etc. And, gradually, the CFA is pushed aside.
I let it go in my first response, but I did have a laugh at your objection to an activist, who's been frightened out of her country by threats of violence from an oppressive government/military, not placing a high priority on paying taxes to said regime :-)
She also talks about how a huge problem for these African countries is that they can't pay their international debts. They don't produce anything of value, so can't generate the money needed to pay their loans. That's what's causing the devaluation of their currencies. But she just ignores this completely in relation to bitcoin. How does bitcoin fix these debts? Well, it doesn't. So the fundamental problem causing the poorness remains. [No. Nobody claimed Bitcoin was a panacea for ALL ills. What is ?]
I'm going to ignore your straw man here - I didn't claim that the person being interviewed made the statement you're railing against.
The ills that the person being interviewed was describing though, the ones that she was giving as an example of the need to push everyone towards bitcoin . . . those all stem from this fundamental problem. And bitcoin won't solve it. This renders a the majority of her pro-bitcoin argument moot.
Oops, it's a fair cop! Reprimand accepted.
I know very little about Togo and the CFA. Assuming what she says about the CFA is broadly true, then displacing it seems like a good step in the right direction.
She's super excited about getting Africa into the environmental destruction [No, not so] required to mine bitcoin [with sustainable solar and hydro, and bringing electricity to those that have never had it].
No mention of solar is made in this discussion. I encourage you to go back and listen carefully. Hydro electricity in Kenya is mentioned, as is 'bringing electricity to those who have never had it' . . . but zero mention of details or realistic plans to do this comes up, which seems to be a theme here, and part of the reason that it was so very disappointing to listen to.
Will bitcoin mining be done sustainably in Africa? Maybe. But no mention of how, why, the costs involved, the projects proposed to make this happen come up. Will bitcoin mining result in electricity for poor people who couldn't afford it before? Maybe? But again, no discussion of any details/reasoning takes place. Just the statement and expectance that we will all accept it like lemmings. Not very convincing.
I thought I heard 'solar' but I'll take your word for it. It's struck out above.
I believe
Gridless, or similar, is what she was referring to - and, yes, they are hydro-only.
Doesn't seem to be aware the mining bitcoin will end and is not a long term thing [No. Bitcoin rewards will end but 'mining' will continue]. She also (completely without evidence) says that bitcoin is much better for the environment than all other banking systems.
This is certainly an unproven theory that bitcoin advocates believe.
It's a bit more than that. Barring any major protocol changes (pretty unlikely), Bitcoin is stone dead without miners. Of course, post 21M, strictly speaking, they won't 'mining' new Bitcoins, they will just be confirming transactions.
With respect, the above post does not demonstrate intellectual curiosity and is in no way an attempt to argue in good faith.
I watched your video in good faith under the assumption that it was going to be relevant, factual, and informative. Posting an hour and a half conversation between two people who appear to have little understanding of the topic being discussed and certainly no facts/data to support their theories is not an attempt to argue in good faith.
I don't think either of them have "
little understanding". It was a reasonable discussion in it's own high level context. My reason for posting the video was simply to demonstrate that things are happening in the developing world and that local people are involved in driving it and developing it. I think it did that.
I get that you want to dig into the details and learn exactly how these grand plans are supposed to happen, but that's a different question. There's plenty of information out there.
It's very easy to construct strawmen or plain make stuff up but that's not intelligent discussion. It's little more than school playground name-calling.
Agreed. Stop using straw men. If you're going to post a video, maybe quickly check through the video first to see if it's sourced and referenced with claims made being reasonably supported rather than made up with no evidence. That video was intellectually very disappointing with little factual information available to debate.
I've acknowledged my misdemeanour, and I'm hanging my head in shame.
As above, it was posted as part of a broad discussion about whether or not Bitcoin is taking root as a currency in developing nations.
