Too few bitcoiners "willing to spend bitcoin"

That's exactly the critical point: To "create Bitcoin spenders" businesses must pay workers in bitcoin, so they "earn Bitcoin". Workers must spend most if not all their earnings.

Economically, that can only work if we re-create the socalled "Wage Fund" in Bitcoin like we had in Gold Standard times before fiat.

It is fairly clear how this can be done and built.

"this time it clicked more with me" Glad to hear it. Bitcoin in the real economy requires quite a different thought model, not "gold producer" for M0 but "circular trade finance" for M1.

"they turn it into colones" Exactly the sore spot. Sellers do that because - for all their faults - colones capability includes a Wage Fund for the earning/spending paradigm.

In a full Bitcoin system the sellers at the Uvita market accept bitcoin and then don't exchange it for colones but they redeem the bitcoin-denominated bills of exchange which paid for their merchandise on stock. Circularity.

Sounds promising. It may be a starting point for the MoE layer. If you are open to discuss this (also to clarify some old things) how about a DM?

It always comes back to volatility. To enable Bitcoin as a viable Medium of Exchange, a volatility solution needs to be available first. Only then this makes sense for retailers.

Your pet project sounds great. We are currently building the merchant/retailer mode of Bitcredit wallet on a corporate grade mint implementation in Rust, for smartphones. Since both our efforts seem to aim for Medium of Exchange in the Real Economy, they may be complementary. Let's chat if interested: npub1924xzcxh5hal80afljr7sl7qsr6572y95e3qw0ejdstatsx7ma7sqj4f6r

The citations - including Adam Smith - are correct, but they do refer to private, consumption credit. This is the well-founded usury problem.

It is a very different thing with trade and industry. Business needs credit for working capital. Refer to Book 2, Chapter IV, to understand the necessity of commercial credit:

“The borrower may use it [money lent at interest] either as a capital, or as a stock reserved for immediate consumption. If he uses it as a capital, he employs it in the maintenance of productive labourers, who reproduce the value, with a profit. He can, in this case, both restore the capital, and pay the interest, without alienating or encroaching upon any other source of revenue. If he uses it as a stock reserved for immediate consumption, he acts the part of a prodigal, and dissipates, in the maintenance of the idle, what was destined for the support of the industrious.”

"At the market only around 10% of people pay with bitcoin, while 95% of the sellers accept. That made me feel a bit sad and surprised. This is a buyer education problem, not a seller problem."

Education certainly is certainly necessary. But we already have great education efforts and organisations in Bitcoin. And - I sense - they all do a very good job. So this is not the gap.

It is high time to recognise that the problem is elsewhere. Before education, the monetary economics must be right, and they are not yet, at this moment. We educate only half the story.

The starting point for real economy cannot be "buy bitcoin" because the finalty of "buy" is "sell".

Bitcoiners who want to see Bitcoin succeed in the real economy need the finality of "spend" for which we must "earn" not "buy". This needs a Wage Fund which Bitcoin does not have yet. Businesses then use this Wage Fund to pay workers, workers can "spend" this "earned" bitcoin for their daily life and needs. Everybody, not only the lucky few who have money to save.

Sadly, how to achieve that is a long story and it requires open minds. Not many will be interested.

It is the government monopolisation and central banks where the mess started. Credit is fine as long as it remains decentralised. It is also indispensable for businesses (division of labour) in a modern, multi-order economy.

@globalmerchant sounds just right. Privacy is understood, given the hostility of the political class and of incumbent fiat monopolists.

Compiling a list now, but may have to keep it pseudonymous.

This is searching for potential B2B beta testers for Bitcredit Protocol, a FOSS digital bill of exchange protocol s/w which aims to enable business adoption.

Thanks. That helps already.

Note: Heritage seems to be mostly for treasury (excluded). And B2C payments, not yet B2B. https://cointelegraph.com/news/craft-distilling-bitcoin-us-distillery-adopts-btc-treasury-payments

Any link for PL Electrical which shows their Bitcoin involvement?

This confirms big questions:

Worst: 3. Would Bitcoin be preferred, if it had the same stability as U.S. dollars?

Bitcredit Protocol also went with building on top of Cashu.

The reason was that the federation concept only superficially (i.e. not really) solves the real problem which - besides fast and slow rugs - is its attack vector for nation states and politicians.

Cashu is a simpler and cleaner base to add what's needed for censorship resistance.

Where do you see Boltz in relation to future e-cash?

Great initiative, this should prove very useful for Bitcoin in the real economy, e.g. in international trade. Businesses usually require 2/n joint signers.

The next Bitcredit Protocol release v0.3-alpha is switching to Nostr, so this may be relevant for several streams:

All cool stuff for developers, I am sure.

The economist's perspective is different, especially as OP includes merchants and shops. It is becoming quite clear that Bitcoin is stuck on (minimal) first order merchant level adoption which is reported to be regressing in El Salvador.

I think of Lightning network as a key part of what should become the abstract wholesale money layer of Bitcoin. Its key function will be to ensure verifiable honesty of the retail money layer nodes which will also handle privacy (for fungibility and censorship resistance).

These are very different requirements.

All cool stuff for developers, I am sure.

This economist's perspective is different, especially as OP relates to merchants and shops. It is becoming quite clear that Bitcoin is stuck on (minimal) first order merchant level adoption and it is reported to be regressing in El Salvador. The reason for this reality is rooted in economic laws.

For me, Lightning Network is a key part of what should become the abstract wholesale money layer of Bitcoin. Its key function will be to ensure verifiable honesty of the retail money layer nodes which are much better placed to handle privacy for monetary fungibility and political censorship resistance.

These are very different requirements to the ones assumed in this piece.

Chaumian e-cash is a far simpler tech base to build this, the key complexity being assured base money redeemability. Doable though. And LN can stay simpler, too.

You are no "real" bitcoiner, just real clueless.

Verifiable by the lack of arguments.

That's reassuring. On the long run, you'll go bust and we don't need to read your "arguments". (As far as expletives go for arguments, that is.)