I just came across one of the most interesting articles for Bitcoin today even though it was created years ago. But I just discovered it now so there is one more country that might follow countries like El Salvador and the Central African Republic that have adopted Bitcoin and accept it as legal payment within their countries. Costa Rica could be one of the next countries to adopt bitcoin as a regulated payment method.
This week, Congresswoman Johana Obando introduced legislation to allow bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to function as a form of payment. The bill also proposes that traditional banking institutions can function as crypto exchanges, including safekeeping and wallet services for their customers. Source:
https://news.bitcoin.com/costa-rica-might-be-the-next-country-to-establish-bitcoin-as-regulated-currency/There are some silent but important differences between legal tender and form of payment. A legal tender is a currency that is backed by the law and can be used to make payment for goods and services and can even be used to pay tax. The government also has the right to ban the use of other currencies apart from legal tenders. In El Salvador and Central African Republic Bitcoin is one of their main currencies and can be used to make any payment and citizens are mandated by law to accept it as a form of payment. One can be punished or sanctioned for rejecting it.
The congresswoman is proposing a bill to make Bitcoin a form of payment and not a legal tender. The people are not mandated to accept it by the law but people or companies can decide to use it as a currency or means of payment. Accepting it is optional which means somebody can reject it as currency. The government will make policies to regulate it and as in the case of Costa Rica, it will be highly centralized. Bitcoin is a form of payment in many countries but a legal tender in just two countries.
Legal tender, Bitcoin, Congresswoman proposing bills, my head is spinning! What does it all mean? Are we living in a simulation?
I doubt that we are living in a simulation, but sure there are good arguments out there to try to suggest that we are. But whatever, people can believe (or theorize) whatever they wish. Sometimes some good results come from fantasy-like theories.
Regarding what it all means, you likely need to think a bit moar harder so that you can come up with more answers rather than questions, otherwise it is difficult to take you seriously since you are coming off as a mere troll.. .. of course a bitcoin naysayer, possibly a government/financial institution spook, and/or a shitcoin pumper
But, let's break it down. Legal tender is backed by the law, and you can use it to pay for goods and services, and even taxes. So, if I pay my taxes with Monopoly money, does that count?
You could try to pay with monopoly money and see what happens. I would imagine that they would just count it as zero, and probably just put penalties upon you, and probably even treat you as someone without any serious intent if you later attempting to get some leniencies when they are maximizing any penalties that they can come up with against you.. (of course, all within their administrative discretion).
And, Bitcoin is now a main currency in El Salvador and Central African Republic, and people are mandated by law to accept it.
aaaahhh, no.
You seem to not have your facts straight.
Each country is different, and the extent to which anyone is "mandated" to accept it will be determined by such country..
Have you heard of national sovereignty? One aspect of national sovereignty is that they have discretion in terms of some of the ways that they design their laws. Of course, there are international institutions that sometimes will impose their values/preferences upon sovereign countries, and sometimes there are also agreed-upon international standards, but even if there are some agreed-upon international standards, that would not necessarily mean that every countries definition of legal tender is going to be the same.
Another thing that you may or may not have notice, in the midst of your grifting efforts, is that sometimes there are contradictions even within how the law is stated or how a standard might be described and how it is applied.. so in the context of legal tender laws, we are still likely going to need to look at particulars of the application rather than just presuming and making nonsensical spinning talking-points about the subject matter... which seems to be what you are trying to do.
So, if I don't want to accept it, does that mean I have to move to a different country?
Yes, it does.
But, wait, the congresswoman is proposing a bill to make Bitcoin a form of payment, not a legal tender. So, what does that even mean? Can I pay for my groceries with a hug?
You might be able to pay with some other agreeable form of payment. I suppose that is up to the mutual agreeability of the parties.
If you have not heard, the barter system has not completely disappeared, but surely there are more formalities in some areas than others in terms of negotiability of either price or form of payment, somewhat context dependent.. Don't you know nuttin?
In conclusion, let's just embrace the chaos and confusion and use whatever currency we want.
If you can get the other party to agree, then sure. Do what you like. If you happen to have two chickens, and the other party is willing to trade their cow for your two chickens, then you might have had struck a good deal to have had been able to negotiate such a great deal.
After all, money is just a made-up concept, right?
It's not completely made up. If you had not heard, or you had not realized, there are several aspects of what makes a good money, so some attributes are more powerful than others, and if you don't have a good grasp of what constitutes good money, then you likely are not going to do very well in life. A lot of people understand the various concepts of good money and bad money under the dynamics of Gresham's law, even if they might not exactly understand or appreciate what the fuck Gresham's law is, they still understand the principles. People will understand and appreciate Gresham's law even better if they have currencies in their usage that might not retain their value very well relative to other currencies, so sometimes it might be difficult to know if you are getting screwed by the devaluation of your currency or other aspects of your currency, until you might compare it to other currencies, and then just by getting exposed to those different valuations and the changes in the valuations, it might become more concrete that certain kinds of currencies hold their value better than others and also certain kinds of goods, products or even assets may well hold their value better than others, so sometimes monetary attributes end up getting absorbed into products and assets that were not really designed to be a money (or to have monetary properties), but they end up taking on some of the monetary attributes largely because the money may well not hold or store value very well.
