Topic: Is bitcoin a legal tender or not. Why? (Read 510 times)
Op your question is vast and has no scope, which might have a straight forward answer. You would have narrow it to a country, region or a continent so that, those who can explain will know where to start from, and like this and from the comments I have read so far are all giving the answers from world wide and bitcoin is not a "legal tender" in the whole world. Or you have to restructure your subject to suit the content. From the comment box, users have listed countries in which bitcoin has been used as a legal tender. And the most popular ones are El Salvador and Republic of Central Africa. For bitcoin to be legal tender means the whole world has accepted bitcoin to buy and sell of goods and service which is the main purpose of the creation of bitcoin.
@Zoomic the quote below is from my OP, and looking at it in comparison to all you explain about what a legal tender is it seems we're on same page but yet you claim that the OP have no understanding of what a legal tender is.
If your statements were a counter explanation different from what my OP defined a legal tender to be it would have been logical to grasp why you said I have no understanding of what a legal tender status is. So what exactly are you saying?
Here's a part of a statement of my op post, please do your comparison to that of yours.
With this, it shows that you understand what a legal tender is but the one you had a debate with doesn't understand it. I made such a statement based on the title of your thread. Reading the title appears that you are unsure if bitcoin is a legal tender or not. Maybe you didn't get the perfect title to the thread. But be it as it may, we are on the same page now...cheers. If your statements were a counter explanation different from what my OP defined a legal tender to be it would have been logical to grasp why you said I have no understanding of what a legal tender status is. So what exactly are you saying?
Here's a part of a statement of my op post, please do your comparison to that of yours.
Quote
On the other side I was trying to explain to him that a legal tender is that which is accepted by the government and under the regulation of any central bank and this is not so with bitcoin
To clear the air about the whole argument I considered I should share this in the forum to have a clear stand if bitcoin is a legal tender or not.
The debate about the legality of bitcoin is jurisdiction based. That is it depends on the country that you are pointing to or referring to. So it can not be generalized.
For example you can say bitcoin is a legal tender in El Salvador because it is the country known so far to all that has declared it and backed it by their law as legal tender, that means it use can not be rejected by someone in El Salvador for not being a legal tender. But we can't say because it is legal tender in El Salvador therefore it is a legal tender some where else when they have not made it a law as legal tender.
So, if the government of your country has made a law that mandates her citizens to compulsorily accept bitcoin, it therefore means that bitcoin is a legal tender in your country. Otherwise, bitcoin isn't a legal tender in your country.
The status of legal tenderness is only ascertainable in country by country bases. If approached as a whole and from the origin of bitcoin, it is not a legal tender and was not created to be.
If your statements were a counter explanation different from what my OP defined a legal tender to be it would have been logical to grasp why you said I have no understanding of what a legal tender status is. So what exactly are you saying?
Here's a part of a statement of my op post, please do your comparison to that of yours.
Quote
On the other side I was trying to explain to him that a legal tender is that which is accepted by the government and under the regulation of any central bank and this is not so with bitcoin
Still in the course of learning.
Got into a slight debate with a friend about bitcoin. The whole argument was if bitcoin is a legal tender or not. And he was emphasizing on the premises that bitcoin is a legal tender in the sense that it is used for the exchange of goods and services around the world. And that by the virtue of people using it it's therefore a legal tender.
On the other side I was trying to explain to him that a legal tender is that which is accepted by the government and under the regulation of any central bank and this is not so with bitcoin. Furthermore, that one of the reasons people accept bitcoin for exchange of goods and services is because the coin it is like a digital gold that has value specially for long term storage and also with equal unit of value anywhere in the world, etc. Using gold or diamond as obvious example of things that has value, I asked him a rhetorical question; that just because these objects has value and could be used as a means of exchange does it make them to be regarded as a legal tender?
To clear the air about the whole argument I considered I should share this in the forum to have a clear stand if bitcoin is a legal tender or not.
Got into a slight debate with a friend about bitcoin. The whole argument was if bitcoin is a legal tender or not. And he was emphasizing on the premises that bitcoin is a legal tender in the sense that it is used for the exchange of goods and services around the world. And that by the virtue of people using it it's therefore a legal tender.
On the other side I was trying to explain to him that a legal tender is that which is accepted by the government and under the regulation of any central bank and this is not so with bitcoin. Furthermore, that one of the reasons people accept bitcoin for exchange of goods and services is because the coin it is like a digital gold that has value specially for long term storage and also with equal unit of value anywhere in the world, etc. Using gold or diamond as obvious example of things that has value, I asked him a rhetorical question; that just because these objects has value and could be used as a means of exchange does it make them to be regarded as a legal tender?
To clear the air about the whole argument I considered I should share this in the forum to have a clear stand if bitcoin is a legal tender or not.
You are right on your argument. It doesn't matter what we think about Bitcoin being a legal tender or not. This status can only be given by the government. We may be using Bitcoin for a long time and we may be using it for buying goods. It won't be considered as a legal tender unless the government certifies it.
So no matter what think, it's in the hands of the government, really. The legal tender means just that.
On the other side I was trying to explain to him that a legal tender is that which is accepted by the government and under the regulation of any central bank and this is not so with bitcoin. Furthermore, that one of the reasons people accept bitcoin for exchange of goods and services is because the coin it is like a digital gold that has value specially for long term storage and also with equal unit of value anywhere in the world, etc. Using gold or diamond as obvious example of things that has value, I asked him a rhetorical question; that just because these objects has value and could be used as a means of exchange does it make them to be regarded as a legal tender?
To clear the air about the whole argument I considered I should share this in the forum to have a clear stand if bitcoin is a legal tender or not.
You really got your friend cornered with all these valid points but seems he was right in some way just didn't elaborate his point well.To clear the air about the whole argument I considered I should share this in the forum to have a clear stand if bitcoin is a legal tender or not.
To clear the air about the whole argument I considered I should share this in the forum to have a clear stand if bitcoin is a legal tender or not.
The debate about the legality of bitcoin is jurisdiction based. That is it depends on the country that you are pointing to or referring to. So it can not be generalized.
For example you can say bitcoin is a legal tender in El Salvador because it is the country known so far to all that has declared it and backed it by their law as legal tender, that means it use can not be rejected by someone in El Salvador for not being a legal tender. But we can't say because it is legal tender in El Salvador therefore it is a legal tender some where else when they have not made it a law as legal tender.
So, if the government of your country has made a law that mandates her citizens to compulsorily accept bitcoin, it therefore means that bitcoin is a legal tender in your country. Otherwise, bitcoin isn't a legal tender in your country.
The status of legal tenderness is only ascertainable in country by country bases. If approached as a whole and from the origin of bitcoin, it is not a legal tender and was not created to be.
In some countries, bitcoin has become a legal means of payment and @YOSHIE and @dansus021 have provided a list of countries along with estimates of the next countries that will use bitcoin as a legal means of payment.
But when someone buys goods or services from the internet using bitcoin, bitcoin has become a legal means of payment apart from using Paypay, credit or debit cards and instead crosses borders between countries and can be used worldwide.
You can find a list of countries that have legalized bitcoin below:
Maybe there are still other countries that have not been included in that list and I think there will be more countries that will make bitcoin a legal tender in the future.
You and your friends can reach one conclusion, there are already countries that have made bitcoin a legal payment and in the future, more and more countries will follow suit.
But when someone buys goods or services from the internet using bitcoin, bitcoin has become a legal means of payment apart from using Paypay, credit or debit cards and instead crosses borders between countries and can be used worldwide.
You can find a list of countries that have legalized bitcoin below:
Code:
https://101blockchains.com/cryptocurrency-legal-countries-list/
https://b2binpay.com/en/countries-which-allow-cryptocurrency-as-legal-payment-method/
...etc
You and your friends can reach one conclusion, there are already countries that have made bitcoin a legal payment and in the future, more and more countries will follow suit.
Your friend's perspective is valid; Bitcoin is widely used for goods and services. However, traditional legal tenders are regulated by governments and central banks, which Bitcoin isn't. It's more akin to a valuable commodity like gold, not a legal tender. The debate highlights Bitcoin's unique position at the intersection of currency and commodity.
To clear the air about the whole argument I considered I should share this in the forum to have a clear stand if bitcoin is a legal tender or not.
The debate about the legality of bitcoin is jurisdiction based. That is it depends on the country that you are pointing to or referring to. So it can not be generalized.
For example you can say bitcoin is a legal tender in El Salvador because it is the country known so far to all that has declared it and backed it by their law as legal tender, that means it use can not be rejected by someone in El Salvador for not being a legal tender. But we can't say because it is legal tender in El Salvador therefore it is a legal tender some where else when they have not made it a law as legal tender.
Anything outside of government control is not considered legal tender. If Bitcoin does not come under state control, governments will not accept it as legal tender.
The most important feature of Bitcoin is decentralization, and this is completely inconsistent with governments that want to centralize and control everything. Here lies the problem that is difficult to solve. How do governments accept Bitcoin while remaining decentralized?
As for gold and diamonds, it is true that it has a value in itself, but I believe that people or governments are the ones who gave it this value, meaning that if we assume, for example, that in a country the government refuses to accept gold, then it will have no value in that country.
You made some emphatic statements and anyone who read carefully will understand. We all know that the nature of the government is to control, monitor, regulate and centralize. So, there will never be a perfect marriage between a highly centralized government and totally decentralized coin like bitcoin. Both are moving completely in opposite directions. The most important feature of Bitcoin is decentralization, and this is completely inconsistent with governments that want to centralize and control everything. Here lies the problem that is difficult to solve. How do governments accept Bitcoin while remaining decentralized?
As for gold and diamonds, it is true that it has a value in itself, but I believe that people or governments are the ones who gave it this value, meaning that if we assume, for example, that in a country the government refuses to accept gold, then it will have no value in that country.
So, even if some countries have decided to make bitcoin a legal tender, but by default, bitcoin was not designed to be a legal tender and neither was it designed to fight the fiat.
yes bitcoin is a legal tender in some country maybe other will follow you can actually see in the coinmarketcap sites
The Central African Republic canceled the acceptance of bitcoin as a legal tender back in the spring. So at the moment, only El Salvador remains the only country where bitcoin has such a status.
Let me know your country to say it's the legal or illegal one.Because the bitcoin is legal in some country and illegal in some country.So it's essential one to check,whether it's legal or illegal before investing your money in the bitcoin.The bitcoin legalized country use of the bitcoin and USDT as their mode of the payment.Because most of the payment system will charge certain amount as the fee for the transaction.In China,many of the people using other way to buy the cryptocurrency using some middle man.If the cryptocurrency was the legal one in the China,surely they buy more cryptocurrency and help for the growth of cryptocurrency development.
yes bitcoin is a legal tender in some country maybe other will follow you can actually see in the coinmarketcap sites - https://coinmarketcap.com/legal-tender-countries/
Maybe the next country who accept bitcoin as legal tender would be venezuela in my guess
tho one is sure there is lot of government that look into crypto today
Maybe the next country who accept bitcoin as legal tender would be venezuela in my guess
tho one is sure there is lot of government that look into crypto today
If Bitcoin does not come under state control, governments will not accept it as legal tender.
Are you fundamentally ignoring the example of El Salvador? If so, then why not recall the example of the Central African Republic, where bitcoin was first recognized as a legal tender, and then a year later it was canceled? It would help in your rhetoric. However, until El Salvador reverses its decision, his example demonstrates that it is quite possible for states to operate with something that they do not fully control. Moreover, the other currency of El Salvador is the American dollar, and it is also not controlled by El Salvador, it is controlled by a completely different state. However, El Salvador copes with it. And El Salvador is not the only state that does the same.
I know things are getting close gradually and there might be a time when the government will want to come in by full force to make regulations for crypto assets. Since all crypto assets cannot stand alone on there own without the government coming in to either accept it or not. I just hope that time will not come now as soon as possible.
My goodness, this looks more like a Bitcoin Discussion thread, where more banal discussions take place, than a Legal thread, Bitcoin is legal tender where it has been declared legal tender by a law. Period. Not because of the considerations your friend may make for how it is used.
Are you fundamentally ignoring the example of El Salvador? If so, then why not recall the example of the Central African Republic, where bitcoin was first recognized as a legal tender, and then a year later it was canceled? It would help in your rhetoric. However, until El Salvador reverses its decision, his example demonstrates that it is quite possible for states to operate with something that they do not fully control. Moreover, the other currency of El Salvador is the American dollar, and it is also not controlled by El Salvador, it is controlled by a completely different state. However, El Salvador copes with it. And El Salvador is not the only state that does the same.
I do not ignore the experience of El Salvador, but this experience is still in its infancy and there are many problems that it faces and cannot be judged definitively.On the other hand, it is true that El Salvador does not control Bitcoin, but it controls the main wallet, Chifu, which was created by the Salvadoran government. Also, El Salvador can control all third-party services that operate Bitcoin through KYC, AML laws.
I think the main reason why El Salvador accepted Bitcoin as its main currency is that it does not have its own fiat, but rather used the dollar. It is more likely that if El Salvador had its own fiat, it might not accept Bitcoin as an official currency.
In any case, I encourage the experience of El Salvador, and I hope that it will succeed. I also hope that governments will accept Bitcoin as a legal tender.
If Bitcoin does not come under state control, governments will not accept it as legal tender.
Are you fundamentally ignoring the example of El Salvador? If so, then why not recall the example of the Central African Republic, where bitcoin was first recognized as a legal tender, and then a year later it was canceled? It would help in your rhetoric. However, until El Salvador reverses its decision, his example demonstrates that it is quite possible for states to operate with something that they do not fully control. Moreover, the other currency of El Salvador is the American dollar, and it is also not controlled by El Salvador, it is controlled by a completely different state. However, El Salvador copes with it. And El Salvador is not the only state that does the same.
Anything outside of government control is not considered legal tender. If Bitcoin does not come under state control, governments will not accept it as legal tender.
The most important feature of Bitcoin is decentralization, and this is completely inconsistent with governments that want to centralize and control everything. Here lies the problem that is difficult to solve. How do governments accept Bitcoin while remaining decentralized?
As for gold and diamonds, it is true that it has a value in itself, but I believe that people or governments are the ones who gave it this value, meaning that if we assume, for example, that in a country the government refuses to accept gold, then it will have no value in that country.
The most important feature of Bitcoin is decentralization, and this is completely inconsistent with governments that want to centralize and control everything. Here lies the problem that is difficult to solve. How do governments accept Bitcoin while remaining decentralized?
As for gold and diamonds, it is true that it has a value in itself, but I believe that people or governments are the ones who gave it this value, meaning that if we assume, for example, that in a country the government refuses to accept gold, then it will have no value in that country.
topic " bitcoin is a legal tender" can only be solved by the governing system and authorities of a state , they determined whether it's should be legally tendered or vice-versa
To clear the air about the whole argument I considered I should share this in the forum to have a clear stand if bitcoin is a legal tender or not.
Your question is general, broadly speaking Bitcoin has different laws in each country, illegal or legal.To overcome the argument of your doubts, Bitcoin as a legal currency or not, you can see it here.
Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory.
Quote
The legal status of cryptocurrencies varies substantially from one jurisdiction to another, and is still undefined or changing in many of them.[1] Whereas, in the majority of countries the usage of cryptocurrency isn't in itself illegal, its status and usability as a means of payment (or a commodity) varies, with differing regulatory implications.[2]
While some states have explicitly allowed its use and trade, others have banned or restricted it. Likewise, various government agencies, departments, and courts have classified cryptocurrencies differently.
While some states have explicitly allowed its use and trade, others have banned or restricted it. Likewise, various government agencies, departments, and courts have classified cryptocurrencies differently.
Hopefully, all the quotes / sources above, can overcome the confusion there is about the law that applies to Bitcoin.
Jump to: