[floss_silicate]

There’s a bit of sleight of hand going on with this article, which conflates use of the Chivo wallet software with bitcoin.

But then later the article says:

“Meanwhile, many living in tourist hot spots on the Pacific coast, where Bitcoin usage is highest, have transitioned to other crypto wallets, such as the privately developed Bitcoin Beach.”

So they’re using the currency, just not the government developed software.

And a weird phrasing here “[many] are using it to hold and transfer dollars, El Salvador’s official currency”, implying dollars are the only ‘official’ currency — when by definition, Bitcoin is too.

[frankbreetz]

I don't know how you can call this a slight of hand the title of the article is "Most Salvadorans have already ditched their national Bitcoin wallets", I don't know how you could make this more clear in an article title without making it too long.

[floss_silicate]

But all the comments in this thread are talking about the failure of bitcoin, when the article is about the wallet software they developed.

That’s the sleight of hand.

[thaway2839]

So (a) it's not a sleight of hand by the article, and (b) Welcome to HN (and almost every other discussion forum), where the commentary almost always has nothing to do with the article and has everything to do with pet peeves of the commenters related to the topic of the article.

[Armisael16]

How would you re-write the headline? This feels more like a case where people just won’t read it regardless of what’s written.

[mattkrause]

Just the headline is tough, but "Salvadorans try out bitcoin[0], but shy away from government's Chivo software." The issue is that it's two different stories that are related, but not that strongly.

[0] Assuming it's true, as a sibling comment says, that 70% of people have done something with it and 11% are using it for something.

[notch656a]

A bitcoin wallet is generally meant to denote a wallet that contains bitcoin. Chivo is not a wallet for bitcoin. It is a 'wallet' that gives you proper authentication to trade on a lightning network. The actual bitcoin, and as is my understanding even the lightning wallet, is in custody of a more centralized location.

Calling Chivo app a 'bitcoin wallet' is an intentionally misrepresentation, if not by the confused writer of the article then of the government that confused the person writing it.

These people didn't 'ditch' a bitcoin wallet, or at least not the one mentioned, because Chivo never was one.

[philihp]

Noncustodial bitcoin wallets are still wallets. The function of a wallet is to keep your money secure and facilitate sending it to others. Having a bank be a proxy to this is both absurd and normal.

Users should be aware and make a conscious decision about where their keys are kept, however this is usually something that doesn't matter until they either lose their phone or law enforcement freezes/seizes their money. It's pretty high up on Maslow's hierarchy of financial freedom.

[notch656a]

>The function of a wallet is to keep your money secure

Do you have evidence that the money secured by Chivo is actually 'secure.' If not then it fails to meet your own definition of a wallet. It's the constant HN semantic argument ("well it lets you log into something to trade something that isn't actually bitcoin but you could get bitcoin eventually so therefore it's a bitcoin wallet!!!") Yes if you want to play semantic games my work computer (sans bitcoin software) is also a bitcoin wallet because I can access my online banking which in turn allows me to, eventually, get bitcoin after a number of operations.

Having credentials that in turn allow you to trade on the lightning network that in turn allows you to get bitcoin does not a bitcoin wallet make.

[throwmeariver1]

Not a single person in the general public would even know half of the buzzwords you just used and the other half isn't interested in technicalities. The wallet is used to pay and receive bitcoin. It's a bitcoin wallet at least for 99% of people on the planet.

[notch656a]

OK, lets put it in laymen's terms.

The headline says the customer's threw away their wallet that holds their cash.

In reality, they through away their debit card which, if everything goes right and their accounts aren't seized and their bank stays honest, they can pull out a wad of cash. They probably threw away this debit card because they already transferred their cash to a different bank.

A debit card is not a wallet of cash. Throwing away the debit card doesn't tell you anything of what you did with the cash the debit card could possibly access. Chivo is a debit card for maybe, hopefully controlling the ability to trade bitcoin held in custody somewhere else on the lightning network, not a wallet containing bitcoin. Calling it a bitcoin wallet is intentional deception, if not by the author then by the person that told them that.

Now if I told you everyone threw away the wallet that held their national cash, that would paint a very different portrait than saying they all threw away their debit cards to a particular insecure bank that they already transferred their national cash out of. The first would imply they gave up national cash (bitcoin), the second would just imply they gave up on one particular stupid bank that might give them access to their national cash (chivo).

>Not a single person in the general public would even know half of the buzzwords you just used and the other half isn't interested in technicalities. The wallet is used to pay and receive bitcoin. It's a bitcoin wallet at least for 99% of people on the planet.

And yet apparently many El Salvadorans apparently did. Because they chose to transfer their assets to 'more secure' apps and actual bitcoin wallets. The thing is, when it concerns someones money, they tend to learn very fast. The same country boy that may laugh at nerds and chemical terms and academic 'buzzwords', may actually learn and know a ton about chemistry when it comes to maintaining their crops. People in Central America are not stupid.

[wccrawford]

Just like the "great resignation", the journalist has used a technically correct phrase, but it doesn't paint the real picture.

The headline sounds like they gave up on bitcoin altogether. They didn't. They switched their bitcoins to a different wallet.

They could instead have said that. "Most Salvadorans have switched to a different bitcoin wallet." It's just not sensational at all, so they didn't use that.

[Imnimo]

>They could instead have said that. "Most Salvadorans have switched to a different bitcoin wallet."

Is that actually true? The article only says that "many living in tourist hot spots on the Pacific coast". "Many" is not the same as "most", and even then it's only talking about people in one region of the country.

[wccrawford]

I assumed they didn't outright lie in the title, so I kept their "most salvadorans". If that's not true, then I think even worse of them for that title.

[nudpiedo]

it induces the wrong idea as what is happening is a transition to usage and payment over other apps.

[dehrmann]

It also doesn't say what "highest" means, so that number could still be low.