Topic: Please stop asking for "legal tender status" - page 5. (Read 858 times)

Again, you are already free to trade Bitcoin in most countries. Nobody is stopping you. Bitcoin is already legal for payments and has been since it was invented in almost all countries.

People who are asking for legal tender status are asking for the government to use their power to force people to accept Bitcoin.

It is also perfectly legal to use barter to pay for things in most countries.



Again, that's not what the term, "legal tender" means. The word you seem to think it means is, "legal". You can currently pay for things with Bitcoin if you want, and the counterparty freely accepts it.

What legal tender means is that you want to force people to accept Bitcoin even if they don't want to.


Any business in the United States, right now, under today's laws, can accept Bitcoin as payment. Nobody is stopping them.

I can also accept gold as payment, or baseball cards, or shares of AAPL.

There is no law against any of this.

What "legal tender" means is that businesses are forced to accept Bitcoin as payment.

And people should stop asking for that, because it's wrong...

I think OP misunderstood and mixed everything. Legal tender doesn't mean being forced by the government to hold or buy Bitcoin. It does mean that if someone offers a Bitcoin payment, you have to accept it. If no one offers you Bitcoin to exchange something, you don't need to be involved with Bitcoin. Its like two currencies in the same country. When someone offers native currency against something, you are forced to accept that native currency. Where Bitcoin is accepted as a legal tender, there are two native currencies.

..
you are not understanding the bigger out-of-box thinking looking into the whole thing

saying something is legal is saying government say its in legislation to allow..
saying something is not illegal is saying government have not said in legislation its not allowed..
see the difference?

lets explain
pre 1900, alcohol was not "illegal" as it had no rules. thus not illegal... nor legal.. it was just out of scope of legislation due to having no legislation
thus no scope for government to do anything (no jurisdiction) thus no crimes can be claimed for using it

then the 1920's prohibition ban where legislation was written it make it illegal.. then the licencing permit of alcohol, with rules attached, where legislation was written. which made it legal to sell to [insert minimum wage] legal to consume [insert location conditions] blah blah blah

bitcoin is the same. by having no rules it was not ILLEGAL.. because pre to 2013 there were no rules
however countries did then recognise it and start forming rules thus started making legislation

whats legal and illegal is based on legislation rules.
if there are no rules its not "legal", nor not "not legal" its just not "illegal" either.. in short has no scope in legality..

next "legal TENDER"
unlike other things that are LEGAL in legislation. 99.999% of those things are not treated as convertible currency and common accepted moneys
governments that declare something as legal tender then allow businesses to treat it as good as money.. but this does not mean replacing current fiat. it just means extra regulations apply to the rules of legislation when getting legal tender status.. such as banking rules and taxes

Making something legal tender means you can freely use it in that space no body is forcing anybody to make use of anything, we have freedom of what currency you want to use and which one you don’t want to use the only thing their is that you don’t need to hide and use bitcoin again if they have been made a legal tender and when they are now legal tender you can use it to go into contract agreement which is qualified to be sued and can go into any court case.

In countries where bitcoin is not legal tender their are some point of sales you use bitcoin to make and they can take legal action against your and you have no prove of payment since your means of payment is not recognized in that region. Their is nothing wrong with legal tender their might be some level of control up to a certain level when it comes to the bitcoin owns and distributed to citizens by their government they can be monitored.

First of all, I do not understand your "allergy" to the situation of people asking for "legal tender status", they are free to ask and demand what they believe, it depends on those who make these requests to make the respective declarations that this is what they want.

Bitcoin is accepted in many countries in different ways, since you simply buy it and sell it like any other asset or digital possession.

In many places on the planet, people buy things with art, watches, vehicles, etc., let's say that barter is still active, and none of that is "legal" to pay for goods and services but they use it, that configuration obviously depends on the country, now, to declare that in a sale contract the legal tender must be justified with a deposit in an account or check if applicable.

So, there is a fiscal order in that sense, so making bitcoin legal for payments, even if it is not legal currency, is a solution for many users, in those cases that "legal status" is welcome.

That's actually the exact definition of "legal tender".

Again, don't confuse the term, "legal" with "legal tender". They are two different things.



Again, like many here, you are confusing the terms, "legal" and "legal tender".

Bitcoin is legal in most countries. Anybody can trade in Bitcoin if they want to.

Bitcoin is not truly legal tender in any country, including El Salvador, since even there they don't universally enforce their law.

Legal tender means payees must accept Bitcoin as a means of settling a debt whether they want to or not.

It's also worth noting here how incredibly rare it is for this to even be an issue.

The US dollar's legal tender status only comes up in court judgements where there is disagreement about a settlement of a debt denoted in some other form of payment (e.g. a barter), in which case the court can make a judgement that an equivalent US dollar amount be paid, and the payor is forced to pay in that currency.

That's it. That's all "legal tender" actually does.

Legal status is limited to a specific country and that means bitcoin is recognize as medium of exchange, nobody in that country that can challenge you for using Bitcoin to buy any thing and nobody has the right to reject it either. This is only good for Bitcoin adoption, it has nothing to with with centrality or decentralization of bitcoin. The only place I see it becoming centralized is when people hold it as reserve without been use for the purpose is where I see centralization.


Bitcoin is not legal in all countries and just because a country has not said anything regarding it legality makes it legal in any form. They have the right to say it's illegal and they have the right to make it legal which means anybody can own Bitcoin but this doesn't in anyway makes it legal tender. Legal tender means ready to be accepted as a settlement of debt anywhere in the country but the legally recognized is not a legal tender. Countries like China has ban Bitcoin for years now, Bitcoin is legal in US but not a legal tender while in El Salvador Bitcoin is legal and it's also a Legal tender.


There is nothing like forcing people, only you can't hold bitcoin forever do you, you have to make other people come and have a taste of it and because you can't fight the government, you need to be friends with them to get into their pocket and that's where legal way comes in, we need everyone to buy and use Bitcoin atleast to convince them to taste what they have been missing out.

legal tender is not about replacing countries FAIT. its about allowing businesses to sell goods/services and pay taxes and such in bitcoin..
the negative side is as you later say, it then allows those countries governments to apply licencing/permitted use rules on the use of it and start requiring regulations on the services that use it. but legal tender is not about replacing fiat

the way governments achieve "legal tender" acceptance is usually a covert or overt ban. either just overnight or longterm. and then a permit/licencing acceptance of use under certain conditions acceptable to government (even the NYbitlicence done a covert ban, with overnight acceptance under conditions for NY citizens and businesses)

in short your first three sentences are inaccurate but the rest of post is a correctly a concern we should think about.

If a country makes a currency a legal tender it doesn't mean you're forced to use it. It's like with languages. Some countries have 2 legal languages and this means you can file your papers in one and they have to be legally accepted by public services and such. When 2 different currencies are legal tender, you can pay using one of them, or even both, paying half of the price in one and half in the other.

I'd say that becoming a legal tender is great for any currency and this is one of the reasons why Euro is doing so poorly. The EU plan was to make all members accept common currency, but some did not do it years after joining the Union. I can bet you that if bitcoin becomes legal tender in a first world country the price will go crazy.

The illegality pronunciation on Bitcoin in some countries are either buttressed that the government ecosystems such as the banks and other government owned financial institutes should desist from any form of the bitcoins transactions which means you can't sell nor buy Bitcoin in any of the affirmed mentioned.
While some countries tends to buttress the laws in a general overview that not even an individual is authorized to transact with the Bitcoin which means anyone caught on trading or transacting with the Bitcoin in any form must has violated the laws governing their system and the Bitcoin currency. So anyone that insists on involving with the Bitcoin is at its high risk indulgences.

Exactly there is no denying the fact that government wouldn’t approve any currency as legal tender as long as they can’t control or regulate it and if you look at the nature of bitcoin it is definitely hard to control or manipulate it like the government will want and that’s why the government is actually trying not to make it a legal tender and instead warn people off it that it is not something they should go into. Looking at this, it tells you that the government is not actually stopping it from been a legal tender just because they don’t want to enforce it on people but because they don’t have control over it.

Again, the word "legal tender" has a specific meaning derived from the US Constitution.

And shares of Apple (AAPL) are not "legal tender" and clearly investors are not living in fear that the government might "someday" make Apple illegal because investors have bid its worth to trillions of dollars.

In my opinion, the reason why people want "legal tender" status for Bitcoin is to use the power of the government to make their Bitcoin holdings more valuable. Just like anybody holding AAPL shares would like the US government to say something nice about it and enforce that into law.


Done. 



This was a point I was making about the "practicality" of the situation. Countries that force their citizens to carry health insurance, for instance, necessarily heavily regulate the health insurance business.

That would be true of the US government forced everybody to accept Bitcoin as payment: Congress would regulate it much much more. Instead of being "just another asset people can invest in", it's now something the government officially supports and voters are not going to accept giving that status away for free.

You are right that when Bitcoin becomes a legal tender, everybody is mandated by the law to accept it as a means of payment or settlement of debt. But you are wrong that if Bitcoin becomes a legal tender it is now under the control of the government. People are mandated to accept or use Bitcoin for financial transactions but they are forced to use centralised platforms. Bitcoiners in countries that have legalised Bitcoin are allowed to use any platform they deem fit. They can decide to make payments using decentralised wallets and they will not be sanctioned. Making Bitcoin a legal tender doesn't make the government control Bitcoin except they begin to make policies that are targeted at regulating or controlling the space.      

Making Bitcoin a legal tender means that it is compulsory that you have to accept it as a means of payment. An example is that if I want to make payment for a house in El Salvador, the owner of the house is mandated by the law to accept either dollars or Bitcoin. If I insist that the currency I own is Bitcoin, the house owner will have no option but to accept Bitcoin because it is a legal tender.  

The subject of bitcoin as a legal tender or not is subjective of the nation in question in this discussion, for those people living in El Salvador bitcoin is used as a legal tender in their country as it has the government legal backing for use of buying and selling of product and services. And it's worthy to remind you or anyone that the acceptance of bitcoin in country like El Salvador wasn't a forceful act on the citizens by the government because what I know they still make use of their country's fiat currency for exchange of goods and services.

For the fact that the government gives a legal backing to a thing as a legal tender it's appropriate to address it as that in that very country. Whatever thing we call money or give money value today is based on the value we as humans in a particular society consciously attached to it, and by the virtue of that unanimous attachment and acceptance as a government that what automatically makes it a legal tender.

I think you’re the one actually misunderstanding this whole legal tender of a thing, been legal tender doesn’t mean it is enforced to be accept but rather you do that at your own comfortability. Yes bitcoin isn’t banned in most countries but there are restrictions on the use of it and where there is a restriction then that entity is usually risky to been used publicly because you never might tell maybe it would later get banned.

The reason why you see people are clamoring for bitcoin as a legal tender is because once the government accepts as such it means they full support such currency and its citizens need not to be afraid of any policy change in the future. But right now without a proper stand on it and just restrictions you never can tell what they will decree about it in the future and that’s why it’s users can not openly use it even if it is not stopped

Please learn to merger all your replies together

Bitcoin is legal to hold and trade for individuals (including China) in almost every country in the world except for a tiny few.

You are making up a problem here where there isn't one. You don't need to force people to accept Bitcoin. It does not need to be officially anointed as "legal tender" in order for it to be legal to trade and hold.

---

The definition of legal tender is that "all debts, public in private" must be able to be settled with this form of payment.

If I arrange, by some sort of trade, to get your car, and I pay you, and you don't give me what I asked for in return, when we go to court, the court can order you either give me the thing I wanted in trade, or the equivalent in US dollars.

That's it. That's all "legal tender" means. It means that everybody in the country must accept this currency whether they want to or not.

It's the government forcing the adoption of a means of trade.

The definition people seem to think it means is, "legal to trade", but Bitcoin and all cryptos are perfectly legal to trade in almost every country in the world, including the USA.

By that definition, cigarettes are "legal tender" in the United States since you can legally settle a debt using cigarettes. Or gold coins. Or furniture. Or baseball cards. Or whatever the counterparty accepts as payment.

So there's great news for you: by your definition, "Bitcoin is Legal Tender in the United States!".

But that's not the legal definition....

I don’t think any Americans will be forced to accept Bitcoin anytime soon. The Lightning network is unreliable and just plain terrible for use in a large country while the main layer couldn’t dream of supporting so many transactions. I won’t even go into the technical challenges for people who might not know how to use a computer… Legal status isn’t something that needs to worried about right now.

This is very very wrong and I don't think you know what you are saying at all.
please you better not forget what's human rights is about because if you forget that, people will have to use you like you are nobody and you will be slave forever.
Everybody in their countryside have right to agree and to disagree, but corruption have make many of we to always put eyes in where money is coming and not something that will benefit us and others, don't be surprised to hear why some government don't want to make Bitcoin legal tender on there country.
Maybe some have received money from others who have higher authority than them so they have to follow the decision so they will won't lose their job's, if your government legalese Bitcoin and you don't want to accept it, you won't be forced ti accept it because you have right not to accept same the ither way, when your government didnt make Bitcoin legal and you are using it quiet without informing anyone who will be ni harm for you.

The people in El Salvador still can use USD for their businesses even when BTC is legal tender. It doesn't necessarily be enforced but BTC is an option for the people. I don't think you will be able to make BTC a sole currency in one place, we still need the stablecoin ffor its value to be recognized.

I'm not sure if people are asking BTC to be a legal tender. The majority accepts the fact that BTC will have to exist side by side with the government-backed currency, no one can remove those national currencies as they are part of a country's sovereignty.