←back to thread

927 points smallerfish | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.262s | source
Show context
sarcasmatwork ◴[] No.42925398[source]
Misleading.

Under the new rules, bitcoin is no longer considered "currency," though it remains "legal tender."

https://reason.com/2025/02/03/el-salvador-walks-back-its-bit...

replies(3): >>42925473 #>>42925478 #>>42925538 #
1. xp84 ◴[] No.42925538[source]
this article, though appearing pretty machine translated, points out that the law removes the obligation for anyone to accept Bitcoin as payment of a debt, while not (for some reason) removing the "legal tender" language -- which is a complete contradiction.

This makes as much sense as saying that Walmart has no obligation to accept Visa cards anymore, but that they're still a "valid method of payment at Walmart" -- except of course that "Legal Tender" has an explicit legal definition (apparently even in El Salvador).

This sounds like a really badly written piece of legislation. Perhaps there are shady dealings going on where someone powerful stands to lose a lot of money (or BTC) triggered by "if it ceases to be Legal Tender", but also apparently pressure was too great to abolish that legal tender status in practice, so this ridiculously-written law was passed to attempt to have it both ways.