That really was a phenomenal panel discussion.

The takeaway to me is that ... it's time, now. Lightning has eliminated the "zeroconf" risk to a retailer thinking about accepting bitcoin. For customers, fees near-zero to send with lightning now, they aren't as hesitant to pay with bitcoin.

What was interesting to me was that in El Salvador, multinational retailers like McDonalds and Pizza Hut had like three months advance notice, and they had their systems online where Bitcoin was a support payment method on launch day.

Do you think McDonalds maybe has been preparing, and El Salvador just happened to be the first country they could "switch it on"? So I suspect it isn't they are just waiting on demand, ... they are probably being pressured to not accept bitcoin ..., by their banks, by VISA and Mastercard, by the regulators, etc.

So ultimately, it's going to (continue) being small victories .. a corner market here, a bar and restaurant there, and so on.

The other thing is the taxation. I do NOT want to have to account for capital gains on every payment to a retailer that I make using bitcoin. I'm fine with a once-a-month conversion to fiat, for example, and then spending in fiat. That's why Tether (or other dollar-equivalent stablecoin) should not be dismissed. When I pay with Tether on Lightning (or whatever method works best) the merchant can do what they want with it, ...including converting it instantly to bitcoin, holding it for vendor payments and salaries, sweeping those dollars to their bank, whatever, I don't care. But other than that last scenario (sweeping to a bank), the banks are avoided on both ends. And that's ultimately what I want to see -- where the money remains under control of those who hold the keys, not under the control of the banks (and less directly, by the government).