Topic: Is bitcoin a legal tender or not. Why? - page 2. (Read 510 times)

USDT is much better quoted than bitcoin in many countries. This is an interesting fact, but USDC, DAI and other stabelcoins have a lower exchange rate. So when going to another country, it's better to take care of USDT in the Ether or TRON ecosystem, because they are the most popular. In other ecosystems the exchange rate will be less.

I see Bitcoin more as a barter token at the moment, in most countries where the government has not accepted Bitcoin as "Legal Tender" A citizen can "trade" goods and services in his community for anything, without breaking the rules of the country... (Example : I can trade you 4 eggs for a bundle of wood.)

The moment when I open a business and I enter the formal market and I advertise that I "only" accept Bitcoin as a payment option, then it becomes a problem in the eyes of the government that did not accept Bitcoin as a "legal tender". 

The government protect their monopoly over the "printing of currencies" with guns and intimidation. 

I don't see any reason for a debate when we all knowntha Bitcoin is not globally acceptable for trades because there are countries that put a red flag on it. Till now there are still countries that ban the use of Bitcoin for transaction of any sort so this should ring a bell that it csause for no debate. Maybe in the nearest future, Bitcoin might become a global currency is there is a agreement consensus on the use of Bitcoin for trade. Bitcoin may be legal tender in your own state but there are many countries that still put a red flag on the use if Bitcoin of any kind of transactions.

Where bitcoin is a means of payment, then a custodial wallet is used for storage, as in El Salvador. If governments make cryptocurrencies legal tender, then control will be similar to banking.
Personally, it’s easier for me to use a bank card and not pay commissions for cryptocurrency transactions.

You are great. That is it, and there's nothing controversial about it. You understood my explanation very well. That is exactly how it is, in as much as there is no central government of the whole world, there is no how one country would make a decision that will affect the whole other countries.

Even if United States of America makes bitcoin legal tender today. It does not automatically translate that bitcoin is now a legal tender in every other countries. The only way to make bitcoin illegal tender and indirectly for all the countries is for it to be the the reserve currency of the world and I have seen some people made some argument and assertion about bitcoin tilting towards that end, but I do not have high hopes for it. All I am interested about is that the government should let bitcoin be and also let the fiat be. Whoever wants to use bitcoin should, and whoever wants to use fiat should, that is the essence of Bitcoin.

When you say something is legal, it refers to something that is generally accepted by the government of the country. For example, if you have a dollar note and want to spend it in a rural area near you and they don't know the currency, you will have difficulty because they don't know it, despite the fact that dollar currency is generally accepted globally. The people in the community cannot do anything against you because the money is legitimate. In your statement, bitcoin is not a legal tender. We know bitcoin is recognized globally, but it does not mean it is acceptable as a mode of payment; for it to be legalized, it must be approved by the government.



Bitcoin was created to provide us with financial freedom, which implies that we may access our funds without any wait or hassle from the authorities. Our government decided a few months ago to convert part of our money, 200, 500, and 1000, which he accomplished without delay. The government deliberately decided not to work with Bitcoin because it does not add value to the country's economy, all individual transactions are done without passing through the central bank and it was affecting them, governments again noticed that if he decided to remain silent about bitcoin, they would lose control over its citizens. When the government issues an order to change the naira note, residents instantly respond to the decree and begin to reject it. This is merely Bitcoin's power, hence it is not legal tender.



You can't argue no government has legalized it when there is one, which El Salvador is proud of. He has given us hope that Bitcoin is here to stay; if every country tried to emulate El Salvador, it would go a long way, but it will not happen due to personal interests.

Indeed bitcoin to an extent has  similar value with  gold, silver and diamond but be it as it may can not be considered a  legal tender because the exchange of bitcoin with goods or services rendered from my point of view occurs only on individual level and not at the state level.
Despite the visible appreciation of bitcoin in the globe today no government has yet legalised it as legal tender yet because to everyone of them they believe that it's root and origin is not authentic in a physical sense and as such can diminish some day, so imagine 80% of a country's wealth on bitcoin and it crashes someday which I pray not.

That is exactly it. Being adopted as a legal tender in a particular country doesn’t make it a legal tender in another country. So in these countries that it is not a legal tender it doesn’t mean individuals or citizens can’t accept it from each other but this is done at their own preference and not government approved, so If anything should happen you wouldn’t hold any one responsible for it since you accepted it at your own will.

Example could be an old naira which the government has rendered obsolete and not longer a legal tender. So once someone brings it to you, you have the right to reject it or even accept it if you have anywhere you also could use it. But once it is a legal tender then you have no right to refuse the currency

To be able to tell the difference we must know first what legal tender is.


 So according to the explanation, legal tender is something that is officially recognized that is accepted by the law.  See the keywords there,  the law and officially recognized.  So to be able to tell if something is a legal tender, it should be recognized by the government and Bitcoin is yet to be recognized as legal tender by most of the country and in US Bitcoin is accepted as a commodity.

If we are living in El Salvador, we can say that Bitcoin is a legal tender since it is recognized by the El Salvador government as one but if we live in the US, it is not.  Same goes in my country, Bitcoin is not a legal tender but was recognized as mode of payment.

Being used for exchange does not make a currency a legal tender. Anything of value can be exchanged for another thing or product of value which does not make it a legal tender.

That is not how it works. It is governments that choose what currency to make legal tenders and not choosing from a pool of potential legal tenders which they should legalize.

- Jay -

Bitcoin is not a legal tender where some countries banned the use of Bitcoin and others only adapt Bitcoin but did not make Bitcoin a legal tender. Anyway, Bitcoin is a legal tender where but only El Salvador have done it. As far as I know, I don't know other countries that does the same as what El Salvador did. So in my opinion, Bitcoin are both legal tender (El Salvador) and not legal to most.

No BTC is not a legal tender in any country other than El-Salvador. Because The government of El-Salvador has made BTC a legal tender which means, they have reserved in there national reserve's in the form of BTC and the government has made some steps to provide free BTC among the citizens so that they all could get familiar with the system for free.

Your concept us right, as Legal tender and making something legal are two different things, as many other members have also shed some light so i will just make it short, that Legal tender is the one currency that a government will use for national reserves and it will have the currency as national currency like BTC and the adoption will be made easy by the government while BTC is being Legal means, government will not help you in adoption of BTC but they will nore stop you either.

In my opinion, I think that for something to become legal tender, it must have been approved by the government of any nation before it can be fully used in any organization or sector of that country. But as long as Bitcoin is never in full acceptance in the majority of the world's countries, it's not a legal tender yet, apart from El Salvador, which has declared it a legal tender. Apart from that, Bitcoin is not yet legal tender in most countries. because, if it is, that means banks are supposed to even accept Bitcoin and give you cash should you have such a request (just my thoughts). Also, hospitals, schools, general markets, etc. would accept Bitcoin if it became legal tender.

Ordinarily you op supposed under the term Bitcoin and it uses and usage because you started the forum from newbie in 2022. What you would have explained is the part your friend explained. You would have given him examples of countries that have adopted Bitcoin as a legal tender.

Now let me give you some fraction on it. Bitcoin is a legal tender in world but it meant for the individual countries to accept it. If Bitcoin is not a legal tender El Salvador and Central African Republic wouldn't adopted it in the individual countries. Now some countries are afraid to adopt it because their fear is Bitcoin will take over their country economy so they ban it to be used. Bitcoin is a decentralized system and that doesn't mean that the world leaders can not stop Bitcoin, they can stop if Bitcoin is not a legal tender in the world but Bitcoin is a legal tender so it is for the individual countries to accept the new technology or not. But time is still coming that many countries will adopt the technology to support their economy as El Salvador and others have done.

Op so as a member in this forum you are to boldly speak the truth with Bitcoin enthusiast.

This is issue is really get controversial with each comments but let me draw an understanding here. So bitcoin being a legal tender is a subjective matter subject to the specific geographical location where it is accepted by the government of that area. And outside such jurisdiction is loses its legal tender designation.
 For instance, it is said to be a legal tender in El Salvador but  ceased to be a legal tender within a country like Ghana because it's not accepted by the country's government yet.  Is that it?

Legal tender is a term, let's use a dictionary to define the concept.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal tender

What we see is "must be accepted", i.e. someone has to make sure that anyone can pay with the legal tender whenever they want, and the recipient has no right to refuse him. It is the state that has the right to do so. Accordingly, where the state, as in El Salvador, has recognized bitcoin as the legal tender, there it is. In all other countries, it is a matter of agreement between the two parties whether they agree to use bitcoin for payments, unless otherwise prohibited by law.

Bitcoin is not yet legal tender because it is not widely acknowledged as a general money for the exchange of goods and services on a worldwide scale.

The Oxford dictionary defines legal tender as In this scenario, Bitcoin is not yet legal money because so many countries have not yet made Bitcoin legal in their jurisdictions.

Furthermore, many people are still unaware of Bitcoin since they do not understand it, and before something becomes legal tender, it must have global recognition and be something that everyone agrees on as a means of payment.

I think what many enthusiastic find appealing is that Crypto-currency breaks out of the centralized system where the government have to have control of individuals financial system. Bitcoin is a great option that promotes the values of privacy protection and also anonymity.

With that as a point Bitcoin isn't under the control of any government, institution then who has the right to actually proclaim Bitcoin legal or not? Well the point is that Bitcoin is a decentralized system (freedom) meaning if two people or parties agree on Bitcoin being their means of exchange then it can be done. The government can't stop that.

Bitcoin is a legal tender, and it's also not a legal tender; it all depends on where it's being used, just as explained by iwantmyhomepaidwithbtc2. If you are talking about legal tender when you are referring to El Salvador, then yes, Bitcoin is legal tender, but if it's in other countries where it's not fully accepted by the government, then no, Bitcoin is not legal tender. So the argument is that both sides are correct to me based on their own arguing points.

It's only when one refers to Bitcoin being a global legal tender that I can boldly say NO. Because it's not accepted in all countries, some are Bitcoin friendly while others are not, and some are both, so we can't just judge based on the idea or story from a Bitcoin-friendly country; others should also be put into the picture.

Bitcoin is a legal tender in countries like El Salvador which already accept Bitcoin and signed into law as legal tender, but in other countries where the government have not recognised Bitcoin yet as legal tender, bitcoin remains as just assets in the hands of the citizens.


So Bitcoin means different things to different individuals, it all depends on the region where the individual is located but general bitcoin is in the class of gold and other metal assets whose legal status depends on the location of usage.