Furthermore, both Google and Meta have quietly conceded that a lot of the digital attribution data they generate is pretty bunk. It’s why Meta developed Robyn, which uses MMM techniques that have long been used to measure effectiveness of traditional channels: https://github.com/facebookexperimental/Robyn
A better system would be for a service like Flathub to support bitcoin Lightning payments direct to app developers.
Obviates the need for the store to handle payment, developers can handle their tax arrangements personally (and exchange into whatever local currency they use almost immediately to protect against price fluctuations).
THIS! Oh, so much this! I never get it why they do this... I don't know how many times I clicked the logo expecting to get to the product's homepage, but, instead, I get to the blog's index. It escapes my mind, why nobody seems to think about this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
Still not really helping grandma or the other 45% of the population that don't have a bank account. If they don't use a bank account they most certainly won't use bitcoin to do their daily shopping especially with a mobile network coverage of only 30% with only 50% over 3G. For your conclusion we don't know if they switched they could have just stopped using bitcoin altogether we have no way of knowing so the assumption of you that they switched and learned really fast is NIL.
> we don't know if they switched they could have just stopped using bitcoin altogether we have no way of knowing so the assumption of you that they switched
Did you not read the article? It literally quoted people talking about using other apps instead. Operative words: "Have transitioned." I didn't say EVERYONE transitioned, sure some likely did ditch 'bitcoin' entirely.
"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."
>Still not really helping grandma or the other 45% of the population that don't have a bank account.
Crypto and bitcoin doesn't require a bank account. Transitioning from chivo doesn't require a bank account.
>learned really fast is NIL.
Come again? Is this supposed to be some racist dig at Salvadorans to suggest they can't learn quickly? For many people using crypto can be more accessible than signing up for a bank account.
Most of them don't even have smartphones, only 50% of the population uses the internet and you are talking about learning to use crypto when they didn't even use a normal bank or google before.
Racist my ass, you entitled first world country geek.
The majority has internet access, the super majority has social media account of some sort (at least by one survey) [0], and there are 1.5x as many mobile lines as PERSONS in El Salvador (with global market share of smartphones yearly increasing), and yet you use an acrid tone when discussing the notion of El Salvadorans having the ability to learn how to use crypto.
You paint a picture of people in El Salvador that simply isn't the case. The supermajority CAN get access to internet if they like. I have lived in the third world, including places poorer than even El Salvador, and for less than
a common days wage even in war-torn syria you can pay a shop-keep for internet access at a cafe. Those of us who have spent time in the third world understand that people often share resources there, including computers and smartphones, so seeing the proportion of people who say have a smartphone is only a slice of the picture of who can actually get access to one (as an example, if only the wife of every household had a smartphone then the whole nuclear family would still effectively have access despite a much smaller number reflected on the statistics). Even having a cousin / uncle / whatever can be enough to be good for the extended family, as that person can serve as a nexus to internet based utilities to the family. These types of relationships often aren't reflected on the statistics, but people in the first world often don't understand this.
50.5% have internet access... nice majority. For the mobile lines just check how many there are registered in the US and you see how useless this number is especially in regards that you overlooked the smartphone penetration at all. I said nothing about that the people are inept of learning. That's all coming from you! I said it neither feasible nor practical for the majority ( :D ) of people to use crypto.
Shared phones and computers... how practical instead of just using cash. Let me correct the statement of my last post: Racist my ass, you are a delusional first world country geek.
>I said nothing about that the people are inept of learning.
I'm glad you finally acknowledge this point and have walked back from your prior odd rhetoric that suggested it was improper to think that someone without a bank account could understand crypto ("you are talking about learning to use crypto when they didn't even use a normal bank or google before.") And I'm glad you've walked back from your prior rhetoric thinking the ability of the people of El Salvador to have "learned really fast is NIL."
Characterizing an El Salvadorian as someone who "didn't even use google before" sounds a bit presumptuous, by the way, and probably isn't even representative.
You finally agree people aren't inept of learning but simultaneously believe they can't learn how to use crypto? Only a bit over 50% of El Salvador are women, does that mean it's useless to teach things that pertain almost exclusively to women? The fact that only the majority and not supermajority have regular personal internet access isn't an argument against the ability or even the notion that many or even most people having knowledge of crypto if they so desire it.
The fact that only the majority have personal ready access to internet does not discount utility of what's available to them on the internet.
We all know cash is practical. Cash has disadvantages and disadvantages. Some people will choose to dip into alternatives, some will not.
>Shared phones and computers... how practical
Sorry but sharing is third world survival 101... when resources are more dear expensive items often become shared so they can provide the most utility. Very practical.
> you overlooked the smartphone penetration
Can you cite your claims regarding smartphone penetration? You really didn't provide enough information for me to comment on. Internet and crypto access comes through many forms, so it's difficult for me to comment purely based on uncited figures regarding smartphones. You stated most people don't have smartphones, which I think is probably true, but difficult for me to comment on uncited.
Dude, you have so much time on your hand to write little essays without saying anything that you probably can google it yourself (hint it's not the first hit like the last link you posted you really have to scroll this time :P). I am over kicking your shitty arguments in trash because the only thing you do is repeat yourself and throw racism and sexism acquisitions around.
It's not feasible for the majority ( ;) ) of El Salvadorians to use crypto as a cash replacement because there is simply not enough digital infrastructure for it. Maybe your boy Elon will drop some Starlinks. lmao.
PS: I really hope you are just an edgy troll and that's not your real persona ;0)
>It's not feasible for the majority ( ;) ) of El Salvadorians to use crypto as a cash replacement because there is simply not enough digital infrastructure for it
And now you've finally walked back far enough to simply say most won't use it as a cash replacement by majority at present. I think that's fair -- I've never said I expect bitcoin to completely replace cash. Cash is of course practical, and has its place.
I think you've been educated enough at this point we can stop here.
I am 100% sure it won't replace non existing bank accounts or debit cards or help the people trying to pay with their non existing smarpthones at 80% of the vendors in El Salvador that don't accept it. LOL
The thing with educating other people is that you need to have knowledge about the topic you are trying to educate people about and you just don't have it. The real world is not your high school debate club were you can just pull shit out of your head and get points for being witty. At least you didn't try to paint me as racist and sexist this time :D
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.
>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.
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.
But that’s just an argument against any technology that will increase electricity demand, such as EVs.
When the web was growing the electrical demands were similarly criticised:
“The current fuel-economy rating: about 1 pound of coal to create, package, store and move 2 megabytes of data. The digital age, it turns out, is very energy-intensive. The Internet may someday save us bricks, mortar and catalog paper, but it is burning up an awful lot of fossil fuel in the process.”
No: EVs has less carbon footprint than ICE, usually several times less. Digital economy has a carbon footprint, but orders of magnitude less than the alternatives: paper for administration, casettes for music or plastic film for movies.
You need to compare solutions at scale, not just say that a process that serves billions of people is wasteful because it uses as much energy that a process that is serving dozens of people.
Finally, most of the internet is powered from warehouses that are purposely built in areas with carbon-neutral electricity. The operators are actively optimising their consumption and investing in carbon-neutral energy generation that match their needs.
Crypto avocates likes to say they _could_ do it with imaginary wealth, but that are very far from being able to afford it; if they could, it would break their business model. In the mean time, they are settled in the countries with the worst carbon footprint possible. They tried to hide it but you can’t really hide that amount of waste. They have distrupted the energy market of China, Kazakstan so much that thousands of people died in energy shortages. For now, all we have from those people is mountains of unrecycled electronic waste.
> Finally, most of the internet is powered from warehouses that are purposely built in areas with carbon-neutral electricity. The operators are actively optimising their consumption and investing in carbon-neutral energy generation that match their needs.
This is exactly the same case as with bitcoin miners.
Estimates I’ve seen put renewables as 40-66% of bitcoins energy mix, with this figure rising over time.
The incentive is towards cheaper renewable sources that would otherwise not be viable.
Every 10 minutes, a new coin is minted. That coin is given to the person who solved the correct hash. The chances of being the correct hash is 1/n where n is the number of miners active.
So if I fire up a miner and I'm the only one, I get a coin every 10 minutes. Life is good. Now, if you want bitcoins as well, you can fire up your own miner. Now we'll both get a coin every 20 minutes. But I was making 6 coins an hour, now I'm making 3. My production is halved. That sucks. But. I can spin up another miner. Now I have 2 to your 1. I get a coin roughly every 15 minutes, you get a coin roughly every 30.
You see where this is going, right? More miners, more coins. And the only way to get value out of these coins is to sell each coin for more than electricity used for all of your miners.
So you're incentivized to not only use every available unit of electricity to mine, you are also incentivized to sell at exorbitant prices. Bitcoin will not switch us over to renewables. It will also use renewables if and when they become available. Bitcoin has also caused long dormant fossil fuel generators to come online again.
> This is exactly the same case as with bitcoin miners.
No: both types of organisation are looking at areas with cheap electricity and free cooling, but large internet companies are looking at area with stable polical regime and low carbon footprint. Bitcoin miners _could_ value that; they certainly loudly claim that they do. In reality, they don’t. They set-up shops in countries with cheap coal like China and Kazakstan. It sounds like areas known for their corrupt officials and no rules around dumping electronic waste have some appeal.
They don’t go where electricity is carbon neutral. You know how I know that? Because I live near a lot of hydro power, Arctic cold, where all the big players have their European data centers——and there’s no crypto operation here.
Bitcoin advocates are delusional and loves confusing their claims (like they could operate a trust-less financial network) with reality. But reality is still easy to see: crypto a collection of wasteful, polluting, short-term scams.
What was unique about GOV.UK is that it wasn’t done by a consultancy.
They managed to build an in-house, central resource (GDS/Government Digital Service) and pioneered a lot of public service design practices which are the template for USDS and others.
However, my understanding is that the GDS team is greatly diminished these days and the consultants are back across separate government departments again.
> However, my understanding is that the GDS team is greatly diminished these days and the consultants are back across separate government departments again.
That just seems to be the natural cycle of life. Some (somewhat independent) part of the government does something good and admirable, all of the self-interested politicians and other functionaries see that success and want to have a part of it, insert themselves and their interests into the thing, and in the process end up ruining it because they had no idea what they were talking about and should instead have left that work to the domain-experts which managed to make it successful in the first place.
PR, advertising and sales fall under different branches of promotion.