Topic: Please stop asking for "legal tender status" - page 4. (Read 858 times)

Actually, the op is kind of right. According to Merriam-Webster, legal tender is "money that is legally valid for the payment of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered". I've also seen similar definitions in other dictionaries, including a Google prompt based on Oxford dictionaries that you'll get if you google the meaning of legal tender. If something is legal tender, it means that it must be accepted as payment. So it's not obligatory for customers (if there's a different legal tender as well), but merchants are obliged to accept such payments, meaning, in case of Bitcoin, that they must have some wallets, at the very least, to accept such payments. So there is an element of force here, and it's understandable that some might be against such policies.

It's enough for us to have bitcoins in our country as something that is not banned considering it complex for some people because whenever we want to buy, we can just easily access our local exchanges and simply buy them whereas in other countries they don't have this options because of tight rules and regulations when it comes to owning bitcoins and they surely face legal charges if they caught red-handed. The only problem that we wish they didn't implement is the huge tax for the bitcoin owners, so far in some countries as well this is not a problem but they cannot make sure that it will last long.

Bitcoin becoming legal tender only happened in El Salvador and the Central African Republic, apart from that other countries only consider that Bitcoin can be used as a trading and investment instrument by their citizens. Being legal tender means that Bitcoin can be used as a means of payment for goods or services in that country, whereas in countries that only consider Bitcoin as a trading instrument you cannot use Bitcoin to buy goods or pay for services and violating this will result in penalties. So there is a real difference when Bitcoin's status becomes legal tender and when Bitcoin is only a trading instrument in a country.

Bitcoin transactions can be broadcasted and confirmed borderless so you can use your bitcoin anywhere. If you use no-KYC exchanges, you don't have to concern about legal tender status of Bitcoin in a location, nation you are living in.

Running a Bitcoin full node, with Tor, is not expensive and it will help you increasing your privacy.

[Guide] How to run a Bitcoin Core full node for under 50 bucks!

I think he was just trying to give a example about how the government of the US will do. And so there are not force acceptance if ever bitcoin will be legal tender. You can choose what and how you want to used it, as money, assets, hedge against the current status of the economy. Remember though that in El Salvador, even if Bukele won the reelection, he can't force as well 100% of the population to used BTC. We already have the approval of Bitcoin Spot ETF in the US, I think it's big enough to say that Bitcoin will stay and will be look at it as something that is legitimate as US still wields great influence in the financial world.

There's no need to use lightning network if the government want to accept Bitcoin as legal tender, they can just create their own centralized exchange, and force the citizens to use that exchange as their wallet, just like Chivo in El Salvador. They only need to install the application without need to care about the technical thing, pretty much like other applications where you only need to remember your email/username and your password.

As I said above (and I provided a link where you can read about El Salvador and Bitcoin), they are not "really" implementing legal tender there because they don't enforce it. (And I suspect it's because they simply couldn't in practicality--and I further suspect that El Salvador did this as a publicity stunt, not real policy).

I don't worry about governments controlling Bitcoin--it's legal almost everywhere. But the only thing that could change that is a government forcing everybody to use it, which means they'd need to regulate it.


Again, "legal" is not the same thing as "legal tender". People in these forums say they pine for "legal tender status" for Bitcoin even though it's already perfectly legal almost everywhere. (They want the "extra boost" that a government forcing everybody to use Bitcoin would give the price of Bitcoin I guess  .)

Even though several countries have been able to legalize Bitcoin as a means of payment, they do not force every person or resident to use it, this is done so that the existing local currency does not lose its value or divert the use of Bitcoin.  More precisely, if several governments can legalize Bitcoin as a means of payment, of course this is intended as an alternative that can make things easier for all people who don't have cash, such as making it easier for foreigners who come to that country

Let the people freely ask what they want to ask from the government. And let the government decide what they think is better for the nation and her people.

As far as I know, Salvadorans, the citizens of the beautiful El Salvador where Bitcoin is a legal tender, are not forced to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a legal tender there, meaning the people, businesses, the government itself may accept it. But since there is another legal tender which is the US dollar, everybody has the option to prefer the US dollar. It would certainly be a different case if Bitcoin is the sole legal tender of a country.

Anyway, worry not about governments controlling Bitcoin. It can never happen.

correct if there is NO LAW then yes you can do it. and yes it is NOT ILLEGAL
but for something to be legal there needs to be some legislation, paperwork, contract that makes something legal and binding allowed condition

if there is only one currency available then its the sole currency businesses have to accept within reason
its for tax, income, and auditing of a businesses finances for a multitude of government agencies.

however if a currency adds another currency as legal tender, it offers choice

ill give you an example
the US dollar is deemed the only legal tender of the US. where bitcoin is not legal tender status. nor are airmiles
however US airlines can also accept "travel miles" it is not forced to only accept dollars, however dollars are made to be accepted as the main form of payment that businesses cant refuse without good reason, where a businesses accountants measure value, wages, taxes in dollars

Here in the USA at least, there's no distinction between "not illegal" and "legal". If there is no law against it, then you can do it.

"Legal tender" is a different classification wherein citizens are forced to accept a means of payment even if they don't want to.


Usually countries don't announce, "such and such is legal now!" unless it was previously illegal. In the US at least, Bitcoin was never illegal.

The term, "legal tender" has a specific meaning that is not the same as "legal", but it would appear that almost nobody is willing to understand this so maybe I should just give up trying to explain it .


No government is forcing anybody to use Bitcoin right now because no government has designated Bitcoin to be "legal tender" and enforcing that (they announced this in El Salvador, but they clearly aren't serious about this since they don't enforce the law so even they are not truly "legal tender" for Bitcoin).

The definition of "legal tender" is that the government forces people to accept that currency whether they want to or not.


What country does not allow US dollars to be used as a payment? I suspect there might be a few somewhere in the world, but come on, how many could there be? And why would a country even care?

Like Bitcoin, you can use US dollars as a means of payment almost anywhere if the counterparty will accept that payment. Governments almost never get involved in trade like that unless it's a really crazy draconian government.

So since there's not actually a problem here, this is absolutely not a major obstacle for Bitcoin adoption.

Bitcoin is legal for individuals to trade and hold in most of the civilized world already.

Well, this really differs by country or government, just like what OP said. For me, overall what we are experiencing is a misconception, which most people misunderstand how legal tenders work.
And for me, as far as I know, only El Salvador right now is the country that accepts Bitcoin as "legal tender".

The term "legal tender" is only related to debts, what you are talking about is a "legal payment method". And that varies heavily from country to country. Some are quite liberal in this regard and allow people to use any currencies they want, while others are very strict and only allow the national currency to be used and punish those who use other currencies. This is actually one of the major obstacles in Bitcoin adoption - if they don't allow even the US dollar to be used as a payment, why should they allow Bitcoin? Bitcoin in this case is a lot like another foreign currency.

The legality of Bitcoin doesn't matter to me as far as I can do what want with it. the only difference is it's not accepted for some transactions. the truth is Bitcoin works viz vice with the current currency of any country.

legal tender doesn't really meant it most be accepted for all transaction but at least it's recognized by the law or it passes through the law for its use in the country. Bitcoin isn't a legal tender but it's not also illegal so it's just a misconception in the term legality.

That's really not how legal tender works. Legal tender is a designation. It has nothing to do with the government controlling it. No government is forcing anyone to use Bitcoin. That would only happen is a country GOT RID OF their current legal tender and made Bitcoin the ONLY legal tender, which is not something any country is going to do.

its more about the ramifications of becoming legalised (wrote into legislation)
before 2013 bitcoin was jsut lawless, open, free-trade. like pokemon cards or anything of barter
but when wrote into legislation, it then becomes conditioned. where governments gain jurisdictional control of utility and permitted use of

when deemed legal tender.. (a status above just legal) it then becomes dependant that people log where the funding came from, who it went to and what reason, for tax purposes.

where as just the "legal" status still had some conditions but not as much as "legal tender" does

there are other categories such as being recognised as asset or commodity.. rather then tender
where by the rules are not about banking laws, but about the securities and commodities regulators laws

so when certain institutions were lobbying to get bitcoin recognised as a asset and/or commodity.. this then allowed those regulation rule makers to start righting conditions of use too

I thought that this debate has ended several years ago now?  

Frankly I could not care less about whether or not bitcoin is legal tender. As you say legal tender status is just a government endorsement, which means very little when it comes to actual adoption. We've seen massive growth in BTC adoption, both as a store of value and medium of transaction, without it having been recognised as legal tender in most advanced nations.

There are plenty of merchants that accept BTC already who don't care either. And you are always free to convert your BTC into fiat in order to spend, if that's what you desire.

Being a legal tender is simply considered a national currency which means that it’s legally valid to be accepted as a payment option for any commodity. However, the government will not force the people to use it or utilize it most especially for bitcoin that it’s known more being an investment and trading purposes. But I believe the government has certainly some plans to control bitcoin and monitor all its activities or transactions once the country decides to accept bitcoin as a legal tender.

That is the meaning of legal tender, it is perfectly allowed by the government for the people to use it freely depending on what they want to do with their Bitcoin. Once a country officially announces the legality of Bitcoin, it is an indication that Bitcoin is very welcome in their country and this will also help people to have confidence about accepting/using this as a payment option. In some countries, like mine, I haven't heard it was considered legal but authorities don't ban this which still gives us freedom to use Bitcoin in whatever we want as long as it is never used in illegal activities.

bitcoin is not "legal" everywhere as that involves legislation
bitcoin was everywhere deemed not "illegal" due to no legislation(pre2013~)
there is a difference. and worth learning

the correct term is bitcoin is not illegal in countries where its not recognised, banned, licenced .. (basically places where theres no legislation)

EG
"It is also not illegal to use barter to pay for things in most countries." would be the more accurate wording

by wanting legal status officially = creating legislation.. something that comes with negative commitments/conditions

i prefered bitcoin in the days when it was not illegal. far more then the days where its now legal

there was a pivotal point around 2013-2014 in US-EU and most large countries where bitcoin changed from being not illegal to being legal, even if not attaining the higher status of tender recognition

think of it as four statuses
not illegal = no laws, no regulations, no legislation exist for it(do as you please with it, theres nothing stopping you(lawless))
illegal = laws, regulations, legislation wrote to say its not allowed
legal = laws, regulations, legislation wrote to say its allowed
legal tender laws, regulations, legislation wrote to say its allowed, and also extra regulatory oversight to be treated as good as money within condition

...

something being legal. is allowed because the law says so
something being not illegal vs being legal are two separate things

hope that clarifies things