Topic: Please stop asking for "legal tender status" - page 2. (Read 858 times)

I guess I don't want to argue semantics. The bottom line is that a government can control the use of Bitcoin if they want to.


In all of the ways I and others mentioned in previous posts--and a lot more ways we haven't thought of, yes, yes they can.

If you live in the US or a relatively free country like it, you shouldn't take that for granted. All I'm saying...

How can the government not regulate dollar bills when it's fully under their control? They can stop its release. They can print truckloads more of it. They can color it pink. They can change the person printed on it to Justine Bieber kissing Snoop Dog. They can convert them from paper to polymer. They can reduce its size to like that of a card or increase it to A4. They can declare it not a legal tender anymore. They can convert it to digital. They can do whatever with it.

And Bitcoin? The most they can do is call it a criminal money, pedophile or drug lord's currency.


Can they?

Well I guess if you get reductive about it, then no thing in the world is regulated, only people who use those things are. You can't regulate dollar bills, either, only the people who carry them. You can't regulate illicit drugs, only those who traffic them. And so forth. I'm not sure how useful this analysis is  .

The bottom line is that a government can stop its citizens from holding and trading Bitcoin if it wanted to, and it could dictate the way people use it if it wanted to.

Aside from guns and prisons, you may actually specify that there's also torture, arbitrary arrest, even murder and whatnot. These tools have been at the government's disposal for centuries. Have they minimized crimes though let alone stop it? If these tools aren't effective at stopping people from doing even illegal and useless things, would they stop them from fighting for their precious rights and privacy and freedom?

Anyway, none of what you mentioned actually regulates Bitcoin. It may regulate its use to a certain degree, but not Bitcoin itself. That's beyond the reach of any government.

The best status for Bitcoin was unregulated, in the early days after its creation and launchment. After regulations started being applied to BTC and crypto market in general, the decline has begun. The less governments get involved with Bitcoin, the better it's going to be for adopters. Legal tender is a double edge sword. If you live under a fair and honest regime (what I really doubt in most countries), it won't difficult adopting Bitcoin, or making it heavily expensive to deal with due to taxes, but if you live under an abusive state, then you will surely miss those old good times when Bitcoin was unregulated.

About legal tender giving power to a government to enforce its usage I think it's possible, but not every governments will act like this. We have El Salvador's example. If the government wished, they could have forced everyone to only deal with BTC from the moment it has become legal tender on, however, it wasn't strategically and financially interesting for them, as the country would be under heavy unstability, so dollar remained as regular currency, and Bitcoin as a public investment asset and secondary currency.

You're right, once Bitcoin has been said as a legal tender and already made into law then all citizens are forced to adopt it. But what's good with most of the governments that don't have any stance against making it a legal tender or using it as a payment is that they don't ban it. IMHO, that's a better thing to accept than seeing them banning Bitcoin but even with that, we're seeing citizens that still use Bitcoin whether as a payment choice or an investment/asset. So, regardless of what is the government stands for with Bitcoin, as long as they won't ban it. Then, that's the favor that they can do to us and of course, to Bitcoin.

It's as if you are saying, "It's not about the government giving McDonald's any status, it's about the government recognizing that McDonald's is the best fast food that puts all of the other places to shame because their hamburgers taste better, so they need to pass a law making McDonald's the country's official restaurant".

If Bitcoin is such an awesome replacement for US dollars, why would you need the government to pass a law forcing people to accept it?

No other popular technology needed this kind of help from the government. What does Bitcoin need this kind of help?

(Could it be because Bitcoin transactions take up to 30 minutes, and can cost $30 each?)



You've acknowledge that "legal tender" and "legal" are different things, so I'm good...


In El Salvador, the legal tender law there is a joke because making Bitcoin legal tender is a practical impossibility there. So they have the laws on the books, but they don't enforce it.

And legal tender laws do not force people to pay with a certain mechanism, they force people to accept payment in with a certain mechanism.

You can pay with cigarettes or matchsticks or gold or Euros or whatever you want if the payee will accept it. There are almost no laws anywhere about how two entities will settle their payment except in the case of a dispute in court, as which point the court can order payment in the "legal tender" medium, which for most countries is their sovereign currency. This is why legal tender laws effectively force vendors to accept the currency in question.

What El Salvador tried to say with Bitcoin was, "you must accept Bitcoin as payment, and if you don't, you go to jail or we will fine you".

Of course Bitcoin is unsuitable to be used as a mainstream payment mechanism, and the entire thing there is a government boondoggle that was a huge waste of money there, but on paper at least, they were indeed trying to force people in their country to accept Bitcoin.

YOU are the one combining terms

"not illegal" is SEPARATE to being LEGAL
you keep thinking they mean the same thing

being legal means there is legislation
not illegal means NO legislation to stop it
bitcoin 2009-2013 was not illegal because there was no legislation stopping it. much the same with many things that have no legislation involving it

learn the difference

as for legal tender
that is something separate again. requiring further legislation AND REGULATION
i have told you this before, that the legal tender status is above legal status
legal tender status is a HIGHER status.
its about the bank, court, treasury custodial and service acceptance

you really should get out and explore more.
i have already challenged you twice to experiment in the real world
a. go to retailers or services that do loyaltypoints/airmiles and realise businesses are not forced to only accept legal tender
b. go to retailers and see many that are not forced to accept all denominations/forms of legal tender. (places that only accept cash, places that only accept debit card, places that refuse cash and coinage... businesses can choose)

...
the arguments of bitcoin and legal status have not just been about legal tender or not
over the years many changes of status have occurred incurring more and more legislation and regulation(more ways in which governments are clawing at the edges digging their jurisdictional grounds into aspects of bitcoin economy)

2009-2013 - no legislation, no regulation. bitcoin was freely open to be used how ever by whomever due to no legislation. thus not illegal
2014-2016 - legally recognised as currency by some countries(us, eu, etc) (not legal tender, just currency recognition.. there is a difference)
2016-now  - commodity/asset category, means extra regulation jurisdictions added
2017-now  - some countries legally banned it(china, etc) making it illegal. via making legislation to call it illegal

in el salvador, people are not FORCED to pay everything in bitcoin. banks are not forced to make their customers deposit in bitcoin nor forced to accept bitcoin as withdrawals government dont force citizens to pay taxes in bitcoin(especially if people dont have bitcoin)..
people can CHOOSE. however if people have bitcoin or fiat(both legal tender) they have to account and pay taxes/debts of the acquired value they have in those forms.

It is not about the government giving Bitcoin any status. It is about the government acknowledging that Bitcoin is the new generation of money, making fiat completely redundant and outdated. That is why the government should make Bitcoin legal tender. And no matter how badly the government wants to keep the old system of money, it is definitely getting replaced, whether they like it or not.

Why shouldn't Bitcoin replace fiat as the next generation of money?

If we want Bitcoin to grow, we don't need the government but if we want bitcoin to go far, we need to stop fighting the government because what they say is final, you can't win a government if they don't want you to use something, they will fight you until they get what they want, we don't want that between bitcoin ecosystem and the government because it will always hurt the price, most likely up and down without much growth even in the long term.

The government doesn't like bitcoin but institutional investors like bitcoin and the only way they can be allow to use it without any problems is legality status been approved, if it's approved it's going to make it centralized but I think it's going to be on the level of the coins they hold, it wouldn't affect bitcoin protocol because we all can see how the hash rate is been distributed across the world, if the government policy is going to make every household hold bitcoin, I'm cool with the legal status.

For the umpteenth time, "legal" is not the same thing as "legal tender". I know they share a word, but they are not the same thing. Bitcoin is legal in the USA and in most countries. It is de jure, but not de facto legal tender in El Salvador and nowhere else.

Please google what "legal tender" means...


Something being legal for payment is not the same thing as "legal tender".

But yes, forcing citizens to accept a currency (which is what legal tender does) will certainly promote it. Why should Bitcoin get this privilege and not say all of the other forms of payment like other cryptos and Haypenny currencies?

This sounds like the government playing favorites to me, which is unfair (and also very unwise).

It's true that Bitcoin is legal mostly in majority of the countries in the world but the trust that's being said and classified as a legal tender is what people think that the non coiners will make them use and invest on it. And we've seen this in some countries that have their own legal tender but due to inflation, many of their citizens prefer another currency like in Venezuela, they have their own bolivares but many citizens prefer to pay in USD. And just as with country that have adopted bitcoin as a legal tender, they have a choice aside from own local currency.

as for you saying that it deminishes others.. well yes el salvador does treat the rupee, pound, yuan, peseta peso as a lesser currency. and yes COURTS, BANKS, TREASURIES wont accept fines, taxes in rupee, pound, yuan, peseta peso..

but its not about forcing C2B B2B C2C to only use legal tender.... else in 2009. bitcoin would have been banned right from january 2009 by default if legal tender was as you describe

I know it's not the case because they don't enforce their law: they can't, because it's a stupid law (or it was just put there so the country's leaders could profit from their Bitcoin holdings).

And the government forcing you to do something you don't want to do is not "more choice" it's less choice. Like any government-granted monopoly, Bitcoin being given a special status will necessarily diminish other products that didn't get the benefit of the government's largess. It would be like the US making McDonald's the official fast food of the USA: this would screw-over Taco Bell, Burger King, and Wendy's, and everybody else who isn't McDonald's.

I don't think why many people still get necessary bitcoin have to be legal payment tender for every countries around the world, exactly all countries has their own currency as legal payment currency transaction and had regulation about bitcoin have been illegal as payment transaction but get legalizing as commodity assets. During bitcoin not restrict by all countries around the world for trading and investing why many people afraid with bitcoin not adopt as legal tender status however get benefit with bitcoin as investment assets for long or short term.

Lest positive thinking with all regulation about bitcoin still not adopted as legal tender, we can acceptable bitcoin have been legal for commodity assets and I think more enough how to earn profit with bitcoin trough trading or investing way than have been legal payment currency transaction.

go fly to el salvador.. you will soon realise that is not the case
bitcoin being legal tender status there offers more choice

however by bitcoin being legal tender status, comes with conditions such as its taxable(registering your earnings/acquisitions)

..
highlight
el salvador still accepts USD as legal tender too
even if el salvador courts made a court order of a fine/debt repayment denominated in bitcoin. if the guilty party does not have bitcoin. he can still ask the court for a USD value and pay in USD

Correct. But legal tender laws means that you are forced to accept a given method as payment even if you don't want to in court judgements.

Today in the USA, the only form of payment like that is US dollars.

In El Salvador, they are forcing everybody to have the crypto app so citizens can follow the law. It doesn't work and it's stupid, but that's what they are doing.


Um, yeah, I guess the government forcing people to use your product sure does give it a boost in the marketplace.

Question for you: why especially should Bitcoin be given this status? Why not Ethereum too? Dogecoin too? Why not Haypenny currencies?

How come Bitcoin should be given a special status by the government and not other products?

Exactly.

Furthermore, having Bitcoin acknowledged by a government of an entire country as legal tender is one hell of a PR stunt for Bitcoin. This means more adoption, more investments and more people added to the Bitcoin community. That is a huge bonus that comes along with the legal tender news. If you are a true Bitcoiner, you would be cheering for this, not asking people to stop demanding for it. Anything that helps Bitcoin grow and become more valuable (because more people want it and there is a limited supply) is a good thing and it should be supported...

no one is FORCED to only accept legal tender.. else bitcoin would have been outlawed by default/from the beginning if the only currency acceptable was legal tender

no business is FORCED to accept legal tender as only currency

i can without touching the US dollar in the US. Pound in the UK, yaun in China can pay for my flights in airmiles or other forms of payment
legal tender puts a currency into the top valid status of common accepted currency which banks, courts, treasuries CAN accept/audit/account. but doesnt force people to pay using it

force is about making it the only option. yes if there is only one legal tender. then courts, banks, treasuries will only want payment in that tender.. but its a different story to forcing everyone to only use one currency between each other and businesses
legal tender is about the banks, courts and treasury acceptance

even you can admit. retail stores can refuse to accept nickels and dimes. refuse to accept bank notes, only ofer products for debit/credit cards. and even refuse certain cards like american express.. .. and the opposite applies(refuse debit cards and only accept cash) businesses can even decide to only offer products in loyalty points. so its not enforced at B2C or C2B or C2C or B2B (Consumer Business) level

the legal tender status is about reaching a HIGHER level of acceptance whereby banks, treasuries, courts CAN accept the currency

the downside in the ability to be accepted comes with extra conditions.. and its the conditions we should be aware of

..
el salvador made bitcoin legal tender. but does not force people to only use bitcoin. it just means that el salvador treasury can now accept bitcoin for taxes. el salv banks can custodianise bitcoin and offer services, accounts for bitcoin. el salv courts can accept bitcoin for court fines. retailers can accept bitcoin and pay its employees in bitcoin and still account/audit profits and losses in bitcoin

the downside in the ability to be accepted comes with extra conditions.. and its the conditions we should be aware of

you might want to read the BIS reports (banks of international settlement)
right now banks cannot custodianise bitcoin and offer direct services, deposit accounts in bitcoin. but from jan 2025. they can start doing so.. but with conditions

Words mean what they mean. The phrase, "legal tender" has a very specific meaning derived from the US Constitution, Section 10.

What most people want--and already have in almost all countries--is for Bitcoin to be legal. The phrase, "legal tender" means something completely different, and it's not what one should strive for.


When you are asking for a government to pass a law, as would be required to make Bitcoin legal tender, then you are effectively asking that government to send people to jail (or fine them, or whatever) if they don't accept Bitcoin as payment. 

It is true that El Salvador's (ridiculous) law has not been followed because it's impractical and stupid, but that doesn't mean it's not a law.


Again, like so many people here, you are confusing the terms, "legal" with "legal tender". They are two very different things. Bitcoin is "legal" in most countries, and El Salvador passed a (hardly followed) "legal tender" law in order to force its citizens to accept Bitcoin.

And if Bitcoin loses 66% of its value again, like it did 18 months ago, we'll see how Nayib Bukele's reelection prospects look  .


You don't have to go any further than this very thread to see lots of people asking the government to make Bitcoin legal tender.

I agree with you that they don't actually know what they are asking for, and if they learned the actual definition of the term most people would not want that, but people do indeed ask for Bitcoin to be given a government-mandated duopoly (which, I guess if you own a lot of Bitcoin, that's really good for your investment portfolio, right?).



Again, that's simply not what the term means. Please use Google to learn more about what this term actually means, or read about it in this thread.

This is the entire point of this thread: people are using the term, "legal tender" and not understanding what they are actually asking for. Please learn, and I think if people did learn it, they would stop using this phrase.

It's fine to ask for Bitcoin to be "legal" or even "regulated", but that's very different that a government forcing people to accept it which is what legal tender does.