Topic: Bitcoin & California (Read 227 times)

You are absolutely right but the problem remains that, some people are thinking this is the way to verify the global acceptance of Bitcoin. I would say that Bitcoin has been successful even before a country like El Salvador made it a legal tender but the upside would be, with Bitcoin being accepted as a legal tender by most governments the adoption would further push demand which will affect the price +vely.

It does not directly help Bitcoin, but it could shape the public opinion around it. Governments turning to Bitcoin announced it as a global asset, meaning more people would want to own it, driving up demand.

Does Bitcoin need to be a legal tender in order to be successful?

Do we need to wait for approval from a centralized body like Government in order to start feeling secure about using a decentralized cryptocurrency whose purpose of creation was to initially get rid of that centralized corruptible middle man (Read government/central banks)?

Does Bitcoin need to be a legal tender in order to be successful?

Bitcoin enthusiasts in California are attempting to make their state the first to recognize cryptocurrency as legal tender A state legislator in California has introduced legislation that would make bitcoin legal money in the state. The action would be in violation of the US Constitution, which provides that Congress has the exclusive authority to declare what is and isn't legal money. According to the Constitution, however, state officials are responsible for defining "legal tender."

Bitcoin enthusiasts in California are attempting to make their state the first to recognize cryptocurrency as legal tender A state legislator in California has introduced legislation that would make bitcoin legal money in the state. The action would be in violation of the US Constitution, which provides that Congress has the exclusive authority to declare what is and isn't legal money. According to the Constitution, however, state officials are responsible for defining "legal tender."

The positive side is that Biden has already executive order on cryptocurrencies, although it's long overdue I think once its finalized crypto will be accepted widely in every state.  There is a need for this EO because of the states like Cali, Maimi, Arizona and etc which had been trying to make thier cities a crypto hub without yet a real regulation.

We noticed prices spikes after the executive order was released. I think there will be no need for states to individually recognize BTC as legal tender.

Apologies for mentioning this but US costitution is way funny because it can be manipulated as and when required in the favour of Government rules and regulation. It’s not based on or in the benefit of public grievances. So this will always gonna be problem for the US peeps and they should actually call an action against this. Otherwise Bitcoin won’t be able to survive one day if they decided to take it down through illegal tender.

Anyways, this is positive thing they doing and I wish that country like California would have this rendered in the state. California is big hub and it can attract heavy players into crypto economy.

One thing I’ve kind of been wanting to ask when it comes to making bitcoin legal tender in certain places, why does it really matter, like what difference will it make exactly? Does that mean that every place has to start also accepting bitcoin ? Have always been kind of confused by this.

Does Bitcoin need to be a legal tender in order to be successful?

Do we need to wait for approval from a centralized body like Government in order to start feeling secure about using a decentralized cryptocurrency whose purpose of creation was to initially get rid of that centralized corruptible middle man (Read government/central banks)?

One thing I’ve kind of been wanting to ask when it comes to making bitcoin legal tender in certain places, why does it really matter, like what difference will it make exactly?

Does that mean that every place has to start also accepting bitcoin ?

So this could really challenge the US constitution, so we will see how far this can go and who is going to win in this battle.

Bitcoin enthusiasts in California are attempting to make their state the first to recognize cryptocurrency as legal tender A state legislator in California has introduced legislation that would make bitcoin legal money in the state. The action would be in violation of the US Constitution, which provides that Congress has the exclusive authority to declare what is and isn't legal money. According to the Constitution, however, state officials are responsible for defining "legal tender."

Existing law generally prohibits a person from engaging in the business of money transmission without a license from the Commissioner of Business Oversight. Existing law defines money transmission as selling or issuing payment instruments, selling or issuing stored value, and receiving money for transmission. Existing law, the Uniform Commercial Code, among other things, regulates the issuance and transfer of securities and prescribes rules pursuant to which entitlements for securities held by a securities intermediary are to be determined. Existing law prohibits a corporation, social purpose corporation, association, or individual from issuing or putting in circulation, as money, anything but the lawful money of the United States.
This bill would authorize a private or public entity in the state to accept virtual currency, as defined, as a method of payment for the provision of any good or service, including any governmental service. The bill would define public entity for these purposes to include the state and every state entity, including the Legislature, the judicial branch, the University of California, and the California State University, and a political subdivision of the state, including a city, county, city and county, charter city, charter county, school district, community college district, joint powers authority, joint powers agency, and any public agency, authority, board, commission, or district.