Bitcoin Forum

I have been pondering on the motion of making bitcoin a legal tender, if bitcoin becomes legal tender, it can be used in place of fait currency to purchase goods, used  for transactions,etc.
      For me, making  bitcoin will take years because that motion will never be assigned by our financial institutions and central banks. The main reason is what we call;
    
    Decentralisation of Financial Power
   Removing the power to control money and financial asset from
   centralized body like; Central banks, and other financial institutions.
   Thus our fait currency begin to operate in a decentralized system as
    bitcoin.
   And we know that our governments,elites that take the will of the
   people at stake will be at the verge of losing everything if that occurs,
   meaning the system will be open and run by anyone at all that means f 
    freedom.
   We all know bitcoin runs in a decentralized system, so making it a legal tender simply means the government will also have control over it and it system which wasn't the original motive of it
   So two colliding forces, which can't be met at all.
 I know El Salvador has bitcoin as a legal tender, but can only be used as a means of payment and transaction which also works in other countries.
    IMF,World Bank, Central Banks of countries these are the major controllers and Most powerful institutional bodies,so imagine making this system decentralized.

  What do you think will be the fate of our Economy..?
 Let share our ideas on this guys.

El Salvador has USD as a legal tender. That makes bitcoin to be a legal tender in the country to be easy as they do not have their own fiat. But another country that makes bitcoin a legal tender is CAR and also an island in Honduras. Other countries can do the same if they want but they will prefer not to do so but prefer just on their fiat.

Bitcoin is increasing in value. It will be better than fiat but other things has to be put in place so to make a good effect on the economy. Only bitcoin can not make the economy good.

No.  This means the government will regulate it.  Regulating and controlling are not the same thing.  For instance, if a government passes a law making certain cryptocurrency mandatory as payment methods for vendors, then it does not mean they control them.

In the previous centralized system, the government issues money and controls the monetary policy.  In this new system, this power is taken away from the government and given to the public.  People now have the freedom to choose which money is the best.

You're right, Bitcoin is a Decentralised monetary asset and was designed in a way that it can't be influenced by the government and other centralised sectors, making it difficult for the government to have control over it's volatility, the least they could do is regulate and track down citizens or officials that use it for criminal activities. Most people think because it decentralised then it's not traceable but Yes, Bitcoin can be traced due to recorded blockchain transactions which are set down on a public ledger, making it easy for authorities to make analysis concerning the address used for criminal activities.

 Well that's one of the reasons I think Satoshi created Bitcoin, for everyday users to adopt it as a means of transaction and other financial activities for now Bitcoin is not here to replace the fiat currency cause it's not vastly adopted around the globe, but was set aside as an alternative monetary asset which cannot be manipulated by the government and can be used to carry out quicker and faster transactions without any third party.

For me, it is enough for Bitcoin to be legally accepted as a payment method. It doesn't have to be a legal tender to perform its function. If countries recognize Bitcoin as a currency, that would already be enough.

For Bitcoin to become a legal tender is a long shot, and could even just be considered as an extra mile. Bitcoin doesn't have to be a legal tender for businesses and customers to accept it as payment. I think it is enough catalyst for Bitcoin's adoption rate for a government to declare it as an acceptable currency.

Bitcoin should be in grey area (explicitly not legal nor illegal) in order to achieve a complete freedom.

Even Bitcoin isn't accepted as legal tender, but if it was accepted as commodity or intangible asset, the government already intervening Bitcoin. It's not about controlling Bitcoin, they e.g. Blackrock, El Salvador etc will never ever control Bitcoin because they didn't own the hash rate. But they will harm the users' privacy.

If Bitcoin is banned by a government, this harm the freedom to choose because it make people on those countries will be scared to buy Bitcoin, even though they have a way.

No one wants to replace the fiat currencies. Moreover no one also wants Bitcoins to be treated as a currency. Bitcoins are limited in numbers, hence many people will treat it as a digital asset only. Yes the one benefit that it can get by becoming a legal tender is that, people won’t have to do the transactions by hiding from the government in order to pay additional taxes. Only the taxation can be improved if it’s legalised.

I don't see Bitcoin becoming a legal tender ever in this world, unless majority of the world is destroyed by a nuke war. Central banks and governments won't allowed it to happen ever. No government would want a currency to become a legal tender which they cannot control. There is no other reason.

El Salvador is an exception and the rest of the world will not follow the example of a small country like El Salvador.

The only problem with Bitcoin is its volatility and a legal tender is not considered good if it is volatile. I think most struggling economies would try to hold on to Bitcoin as their reserve rather than having it as a legal tender. It is not easy for struggling economies to have USD as reserve but they can use their fiat to buy Bitcoin and hold on to it like they did earlier with gold. The price of Bitcoin has been always going in a positive direction and they can use this opportunity to increase their reserve currency which in the future they can exchange with global currencies or gold. I think Bitcoin as a commodity to storage value would be a great opportunity for these countries to restore their economy which depends on how the political structure of that country is and how good is the leader leading that country.

They can never control Bitcoin, but they can regulate it to a way that it will suffocate most users. We all know that the government is crazy when it comes to big money, and all I can imagine is that they will regulate it badly, like you have to pay big taxes in order to have bitcoin, trade bitcoin, etc.
Since Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency was not made like money, they can never regulate it like the way they regulated fiat, in my opinion.

This shift is HUGE. Making Bitcoin legal tender? I promise that will transform our economy.

Decentralization of financial power is the future, not a buzzword. Big banks and the IMF hold all the cards. But Bitcoin? Levels the playing field. Freedom and money control are at stake. You may respond, "But, the government will get control if Bitcoin becomes legal tender." Not so! Returning authority to the people, not the government.

El Salvador leads. Choice, competition, and a fair economy are what matter, not revamping the financial system overnight. Bitcoin as legal tender: our economy's fate? Greater strength, resilience, and freedom. I think it'll be great.

Compared to other countries that are banning bitcoins for their citizens and take action whenever they find someone who actually holding it, I rather just accept bitcoins as a payment method as well than live in a world where I can't even own a bitcoin cause of the regulations. so it's convenient to have local exchanges as well so that you can rely on everything you want to buy bitcoins and also use it every time you want to sell some of your bitcoins, I'm ok with this and I'm telling you this is a big leap and a huge success for bitcoins that we have reach this level nowadays.

El Salvador like you did mentioned had made it a legal tender already and it's been doing well, it hasn't affected their economy adversely, it's actually been made a means of payment but not the only means like their local fiat, it's been seen as an approved and better alternative for money so you can say that it will affect the worlds economy if the follow suit like El Salvador rather using them as a proto type, studies can be made about how they managed to adopt such and yet it's got no effect on their economy negativity while Bitcoin still retains it's decentralized ability.

Better way or improved ways of managing this could be gotten from the study and be adopted in to other economy especially those who's got a better economic system already they will be the first to try it's and than others will follow and see how to tailor it to fit theirs aswell.

Bitcoin already is a legal tender in El-Salvador and Central African Republic, aside that, people all over the world are making use of bitcoin for payment purpose as they could use with fiat, all you need is to locate a place where bitcoin is one of their supported payments medium.


People are using bitcoin bitcoin even without the support of the governments or the financial regulatory system, we cant expect an adoption from them or that they should support for what we want that will five the privacy needed, they cannot support a decentralized network because it gives them no authority over such, without the governments approval, people are still using bitcoin independently through its p2p network

It is not compulsory for government to make bitcoin a legal tender before the citizens of that country can benefit from bitcoin. As long as it is legal in that country, then the citizens are free to use it as an alternative means of payment, which was the main purpose why it was created by Satoshi. Bitcoin volatile nature makes it very risky to be considered as a legal tender, and moreover it was not created by the government.

The limited supply of bitcoin can also be another challenge for government, because they are used to printing money whenever the economy is facing a decline. Bitcoin cannot be duplicated or printed making it above their power to control. No one can get rid of fiat, because it is to work with bitcoin hand in hand.

We discussed this a few weeks ago extensively in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5484316.0).

The primary take-away from that thread for me was that most people don't actually know what legal tender really means.

Most people think it means the same as "legal", and assume that if Bitcoin is not "legal tender" then it must be illegal. That is not the case.

The actual definition of "legal tender" comes Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution, and there are two things of note about this:

1. Legal tender is very narrow in its scope, and realistically only applies to a very small number of transactions.

2. Insofar as it does apply, it has the effect of forcing people to accept Bitcoin (or whatever) even if they don't want to.

Asking for Bitcoin to be "legal tender" is asking the US government to force Bitcoin down people's throats. Not only is this unwise, it's unfair: why Bitcoin, and not, say, Ether? Or Dogecoin? Or all Haypenny currencies?

Bitcoin is legal in the United States, and in most countries across the globe. For the most part, nobody is stopping you from accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment.

The reason why Bitcoin is not universally accepted is because it takes up to 30 minutes and can cost 30 dollars for a single transaction. This is not a government conspiracy, it's a simple technical limitation.

Stop asking for Bitcoin to be "legal tender". It's not what you want, it's stupid, and while any smart government would never do this, there are a lot of dumb governments out there who will waste a lot of the people's money on a boondoggle like they did in El Salvador.

But to be able to propose and receive the Government's listening and attention. I want to know who you are and what role do you have to influence your government? This idea is not new, everyone who is an investor wants to propose this to the government. But the problem is we are nothing, how will the government listen to us? Furthermore, the government is not stupid enough to never learn and research about bitcoin, they know everything about it but they don't want to make it legal tender.

  Your making a good point, but pointing out the fact only dumb government can make it legal tender is absurd and pointless.
  Bitcoin becoming Legal tender is more than anything we can think about because we need more than half of the elites, and though wasn't the original intention of bitcoin system. We don't need the US government to be initiator, or if they don't accept it can't come through.We are simply discussing the fate of the economy of it becomes.
    You trying to put out that because it requires 30 minutes before transactions go through costing $30 is not a solid background for the denial of acceptance. You are a bitcoiner, people of all races are doing transactions everyday, we know about the high cost of transactions but still we believe and work with the system everyday.

 What the masses want is profiting and learning more about bitcoin, it is also stupid for you to think that people trying to bring up an idea about the system is stupid.
You can read the thread  again to understand more. Thanks for your contribution.

I point this out because many people seem to think Bitcoin's lack of adoption for mainstream payments is some sort of "conspiracy" by governments, "big banks", the Illuminati, or whatever. It's not. The US government (and most other governments) are not meaningfully hindering the adoption of Bitcoin.

If Bitcoin was faster and cheaper than normal credit card transactions, and could scale to handle the world's everyday transactions, then it most likely would have long ago.

Blockchain was never meant to scale to mainstream levels, and it solves a problem that only a few people actually have. It works perfectly well as an investment, and it's reached incredible heights already. But it's silly want it to do impossible things.

Let's start with defining what is legal tender first.

What Is Legal Tender? (https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-legal-tender-definition-laws.html#:~:text=of%20'legal%20tender.-,',for%20debts%20and%20financial%20obligations.)


This pretty looked like a national currency. Me, I don't like that, I want bitcoin to still be recognized to what it is now, more like a payment method, an alternative to fiat.. That way, less regulation necessary to it, and I think it will not pass as legal tender since it's very volatile, and it's decentralization might be the opposite definition of a government which promotes centralization.

Also, legal tender or fiat (most popular) are not limited, I mean the government could print money if they desire, bitcoin is limited because it's supply is fixed.

There is a major contradiction between the concept of decentralized Bitcoin and the concept of absolute central authority exercised by governments over current monetary and economic policies.

It is very difficult for the central government to accept a decentralized currency that it does not fully control as a monetary system for the country. At best, it can accept Bitcoin as an alternative method of payment and nothing more.

In addition to governments' refusal to adopt Bitcoin as a major legal currency due to its decentralized nature, there are other negative factors in Bitcoin that prevent this, such as known network problems such as congestion and high fees.

     Is there any other country besides El Salvador that has made Bitcoin legal tender? All I know is that there are countries that recognize bitcoin in their countries, but not to the point that El Salvador did. I hope there are countries that follow or imitate what El Salvador did to make it a legal tender in every country.

    Although I know that it is very unlikely for this to happen in the future, That's why, in my opinion, it's so good to think that all countries will accept Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

El Salvador's experiment has been a disaster and hardly anybody there has adopted Bitcoin as a daily form of payment there even though the government basically paid citizens to do so.

It doesn't require a government to shove Bitcoin down people's throats in order for it to be legal to hold or trade. Bitcoin is perfectly legal almost everywhere.

Have some countries make bitcoin become legal tender for transaction but not achieved success such as El Savador because not only adopt bitcoin become legal currency transaction in all sectors in their country but El Savador government had good routine by investing in bitcoin since 2021 until right now. Some countries still scared with investing in bitcoin how much with El Savador get braveness without miss one not investing in bitcoin.
Can't acceptable some countries reason not acceptable bitcoin as legal payment tender, I think will make all transaction easily when using bitcoin as payment tender exactly with large amount of transaction just take few minutes only for sending. After El Savador success with their investing in bitcoin will there any countries follow what did by El Savador?

Our opinions doesn't matter in the system. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency have come to stay, it's been really tough time in the system. Countries do acknowledge bitcoin but definitely not to the extent of authorizing bitcoin to be a legal tender in the space. These countries have made thorough research and they're not comfortable with the high volatility of bitcoin. Legal tenders ought to be stable and easy going and not fluctuating as if it's some kind of random altcoin. El Salvador was the only country to take a bold step when it involves in bitcoin.

You said about pondering on the motion of making bitcoin a legal tender. You speak as if the whole country is controlled by just one government and if eventually that government accepts bitcoin as a legal tender it becomes a universal thing. It is not done so there is no how you will get China into this business and also get US into the business Russia and every other country to eventually make Bitcoin a legal tender. What is a legal tender in one country might not be a legal tender in another country. So that is just the fate of Bitcoin. Some countries will love bitcoin and welcome it why some other countries with dislike it and fight against Bitcoin. But in whatsoever happens I am not that interested of Bitcoin being a legal tender but let every country give bitcoin a legitimate status to operate I am okay with that. Bitcoin exist and fiat exist.

Well government just as you have states is not willing to accept decentralized currency as legal rather take it as alternative I think it's correct, if not for more growth and spread, as Bitcoin is decentralized is one among the best that can happen to any currency because the control if government have make many fiat loss value despite it being legally accepted.

This could be one major reason while the man who introduced Bitcoin desire it to be decentralized to avoid overriding power of the government which may leads to total control which may course some fall.

I think there would be changes like some a store in your local store accept Bitcoin as one of their payment method when buying on their store and also you won't need to hide about owning BTC. I am sure you know that some people are being secretive when they bought bitcoin because it is banned in their country so if it becomes a legal tender then that won't be a problem anymore. The final decision will depends on the government if they made BTC a legal tender or not.

"Legal Tender" is not the same as "legal".

Also, "Legal Tender" is not the same as "legal".

In fact, "Legal Tender" is not the same as "legal".

Please stop asking for "legal tender" when you clearly don't know what that means.

Bitcoin is legal in almost every country in the world. You can buy, hold, and sell Bitcoin almost anywhere legally, even in China, where only the big banks are forbidden from using Bitcoin as one of their assets, but otherwise individuals are free to use Bitcoin.

Asking a government to solve a problem when there isn't one is dangerous...

From what you said, I have a question for everyone. Would we openly declare ourselves bitcoin investors if the government accepted and legalized it? Can we use bitcoin in public without fear of someone knowing we own bitcoin? Because people say they need bitcoin because bitcoin is decentralized and protects their privacy, but if we use them in public, it will no longer be private. Not to mention many people are using bitcoin to avoid taxes, will we voluntarily pay taxes to use bitcoin legally?

You didn't get my point mate. I didn't say that legal is the same as legal tender. I only explained the possible changes if a country decided to make Bitcoin as a legal tender which as I explained in my previous post that Bitcoin will be now accepted as another mode of payment. Try asking people from El Salvador and see if there's a shop or store in their country that accept bitcoin since Bitcoin is already a legal tender in their country.

hmm You may Have seen some of circulating videos on social media where kids paying their bills off using Bitcoin as a legal tender and that is obviously El Salvadorian people who can use their digital asset/Bitcoin openly without worrying about that their assets can be in danger if government come to know about it. But things are not the same in every country like this. Although we also want that our country should also announce Bitcoin as a legal tender.

Many of the government consider Bitcoin as a threat but they do not know the actual value and importance of Bitcoin which is the King of all digital currencies. From the Recent news I had read El Salvador's President has announced that the government will keep buying one Bitcoin every day until it is unaffordable with Fiat currency. This Country is highly bullish on Bitcoin because they have seen it as an strong gaining potiential for their country econmy. Well to be very honest it would be a good recomedation that keep secreat your itcoin involvvement if you are living in such contry where it is not legal tender.

It is easier for El Salvador to develop bitcoin as a legal means of payment because they do not have a national currency in their country, thus allowing bitcoin to become a legal means of transaction in that country. But if we talk about other countries, I am a bit pessimistic that what El Salvador can do smoothly, because other countries have official currencies that are regulated by regulations and rules within them. Other countries have more potential to use bitcoin as an investment asset, because this is much more likely to be implemented as is done by most countries currently because legal payments are still quite difficult to develop.

Bitcoin will continue to show development and that is evident in the process of its journey until now. The economic relationship to bitcoin's journey may be interdependent where many people can achieve financial freedom from bitcoin.

The world is gradually advising and the more technology is keep increasing on the daily basis and the more digital currency usage are keeping increasing in transaction, which Bitcoin is the one of the digital assets and it keeps spreading across the globe in time's of financial services sector. One day world we accept Bitcoin as few other countries are comfortable using Bitcoin as a means of payment.

El Salvador used the power of the government to force Bitcoin down the throats of its citizens and… it didn’t even work.

No government legislation is going to make Bitcoin transactions not take 30 minutes and cost 30 dollars. That’s why vendors don’t accept it, even though they are free to do so because Bitcoin is perfectly legal already in almost every country.

 Begging the government to force your product on citizens is… dangerous and can easily backfire.

Decentralization is a powerful buzzword, but the reality is more nuanced.  Bitcoin disrupts the status quo, taking power away from big banks and institutions.  Imagine a world where individuals have more control over their finances, a world without gatekeepers.

However, is Bitcoin truly empowering the people, or simply creating a new set of rules?  Governments might lose direct control over money creation, but they'll likely find ways to regulate and tax Bitcoin transactions.  The power dynamic might shift, but complete freedom from oversight is an illusion.

El Salvador's story is still unfolding.  Will Bitcoin become a catalyst for economic growth, or a recipe for instability?  The answer remains unclear.  Emerging markets like El Salvador might benefit from the innovation, but established economies might face challenges integrating a volatile currency.

Dismissing the idea solely because "dumb governments" won't endorse it is a bit shortsighted.  Global financial reform requires a shift in mindsets, not just at the governmental level, but also among the "elites" who control major financial institutions.

Is mass adoption a prerequisite for Bitcoin's success as legal tender?  Perhaps not.  El Salvador's experiment, while still in its early stages, demonstrates the potential for smaller economies to embrace Bitcoin first.  Imagine a domino effect, with other nations following suit as the kinks are ironed out.

The transaction speed and cost issues you mentioned are valid concerns.  Bitcoin's current infrastructure simply might not be scalable enough for everyday transactions in a large economy.  However, advancements like the Lightning Network are being developed to address these limitations.  Imagine a highway expansion project –  a necessary step to accommodate increased traffic.

We must accept that fact that everyone of us has a time that we can't leave without technology and maybe incoming decades will shock us and all our needs and wants are base on technology and maybe our currency will be digital as we all know that nowadays Many country start accepting digital currencies such as Bitcoin so maybe there's a chance that Bitcoin will take over all currencies jus my Opinion. Anyways Bitcoin now can use for payings in some countries and it will be the beginning of all things happen in the future.

According to OP, he wants Bitcoin to be used for the purchase of goods just the way fiat money is used. He has failed to know that even in countries where Bitcoin is not accepted as a legal tender, there are still citizens who are doing their business transactions with Bitcoin payments.

Bitcoin is a P2P payment method, such that when two people agree to do any business and one party agrees to accept payment in Bitcoin, Bitcoin must not become a legal tender worldwide before it can be regarded as bitcoin.

In one old comment on this kind of topic, the writer said that if the government allows Bitcoin to become a legal tender all over the world, it will give the government more opportunity to know the identities of many Bitcoin users and investors, and I don't like the idea.

The different countries in the world have their own fiat currencies; what is the need to force everyone to use Bitcoin for the sake of making it legal tender?

I don't know if there is any other country except El Salvador that accepts Bitcoin as a legal tender. This isn't an easy process, we are thinking. As Bitcoin lovers, we often want to see Bitcoin as legal tender but have to admit its limitations as well. Legal tender means Bitcoin should be accepted everywhere if someone wants to pay for something. It's like Fiat; if you want to buy something from Fiat, they have to accept it. More legal tender means more control by the government. But still, we want it since we can use our bitcoin whenever we need it. 

The purpose of Bitcoin was never to over take fiat and become the only currency of a country but it's an alternative currency, it works Viz vice with a nation's fiat currency, if Bitcoin because the only currency in country I can't imagine how it will look, because there are goods of $0.1 and how would I pay for such goods and services in Bitcoin, so it's almost impossible to be the only currency of a nation right now, in this incubate generation maybe we can expect that in futuristic society.

El Salvador has a fiat currency that operates in there and Bitcoin as a legal tender over there means there are no restrictions in holding of Bitcoin of purchase, and it's based on the fact that the government too is Investing in Bitcoin to burst the economy of the country.

There is no way a decentralized government will ever exist in the world it can never be, not even the financial institutions, so perhaps Bitcoin becoming a legal tender only means that everyone has the absolute right to make any financial decisions, and that is the very best a country can do for its citizens.

Bitcoin is more like an asset than a currency.

It will be better to be an asset than a currency because being a currency will create conflict with fiat currencies that are created and controlled by governments and central banks. By challenging fiat currencies or CBDCs, it potentially contains more risk than chances for Bitcoin.

People can use Bitcoin as an asset to store their wealth or as a currency for transactions, payments but it does not change a fact that Bitcoin will not become a think like Fiat-currency-killer.

Making Bitcoin a legal tender sounds like a bold move but it's a long shot given the resistance from big players like financial institutions and central banks. The idea clashes with the concept of decentralization which Bitcoin champions. If governments lose control over currency, it shakes up the power dynamics, possibly threatening the status quo

Think about the crazy fees of bitcoin, would we dare spend a few extra dollars as transaction fees just to buy a loaf of bread or a banana? Not to mention if a country uses bitcoin as its sole currency, how will they sustain their economy if the value of bitcoin drops 50% against the USD? We love bitcoin, are crazy about bitcoin, but we should not blindly and foolishly harm ourselves or anyone else.

I also like the idea of bitcoin becoming a currency but as an alternative currency that exists alongside fiat currency, rather than as the only currency. But I doubt that will be possible with what's happening with bitcoin.

Bitcoin becoming legal tender is the stuff of miracles if I am being honest with you op. There are so many variables due to which the possibility of it happening is pretty much zero which is a fact.

It's best not to get too greedy. Personally, I am completely satisfied with where BTC is at the moment and I hope it stays that way for a long period.

Many people always say that they want bitcoin to follow the path that Satoshi created for bitcoin, they want to pay their daily bills with bitcoin...But honestly, if bitcoin was only used as currency and didn't have any volatility or profit. How many people will use bitcoin until today? I believe that there will not be too many people who want bitcoin to become a stable currency, and the majority of people are satisfied with what bitcoin has become. Because making a lot of money and becoming rich is the common goal of today's society and bitcoin is doing it very well.

Just your daily reminders:

1. "Legal Tender" is not the same as "legal". Bitcoin is already legal to hold and trade in most countries in the world. Most people here are using the term "legal tender" even though they don't actually know what that means.

2. Making Bitcoin Legal Tender will not increase the adoption of Bitcoin, and could even turn the public against it. Involving governments in the promotion of Bitcoin is both dangerous and completely unfair to all of the other digital currencies like Ether, Dogecoin, and Haypenny (https://haypenny.net/") currencies.

3. Legal Tender is the equivalent of using the government to force Bitcoin down people's throats which is against everything Bitcoin has ever stood for.

4. El Salvador's experiment with their Bitcoin law has been a disaster wherein they essentially paid their citizens to accept Bitcoin, and yet very few have adopted it for transactions.

5. Bitcoin's lack of adoption is based on technical reasons, not political ones, chiefly because it can take 30 minutes and cost 30 dollars for one transaction, making it absolutely ridiculous for 99.9% of the world's daily transactions.

as an alternative I think is possible, not as a replacement for fiat which has been used by humans for a very long time as a transaction tool.
the exchange rate remains in the applicable fiat currency. and the government can impose regulations regarding what transactions are permitted using Bitcoin. but still, it will ultimately harm the principles brought by Bitcoin when the government ends up becoming a third-party provider in the use of Bitcoin as an alternative legal means of payment.

I agree Bitcoin is not created to replace fiat currency but the creator Satoshi Nakamoto thinks of Bitcoin use case as a currency (a reason why he noted to call Bitcoin a cryptocurrency) or mode of payment...
Here is some part of an article stating about Satoshi's discussion of Bitcoin use case with Malmi:


 I am also treating bitcoin as a currency since I am using it to pay for my online purchases.  Many maybe thinks Bitcoin as a digital asset but we cannot deny the fact that Bitcoin was first created as "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that would allow online payments"[1]  So even before anyone thinks Bitcoin as digital asset, it is first treated as a currency.

When it comes Bitcoin being a legal tender, I think it won't be globally accepted, some country may experiment to make it legal tender but those who has strong belief on their currency system will never approve of a decentralized entity since it is minimizing their authority over their financial system.

---

[1]  https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper (Bitcoin whitepaper)

Bitcoin has outgrown Satoshi that is it has gone beyond his control and aspirations. It will be very difficult for Bitcoin to be used as a currency because of so many factors. Unstable price is at the forefront of the reasons but there are other impediments which are peculiar to different locations. Some people believe that Bitcoin might become less volatile in the future and it has shown some signs of this fact. But until then it will remain a speculative asset that will be used as an investment platform.

Some peculiar reasons why Bitcoin might not be used as a legal tender in my location is because of the high rate of poverty, illiteracy, and lack of basic infrastructure. Many people in my area cannot even afford to buy an Android phone, some don't have basic knowledge of reading and writing and there is also a lack of electricity power and Internet facilities. People will prefer to stick to fiat because it suits the condition of some areas. Maybe as the standard of living of the people improves, Bitcoin might begin to gain its ground as a viable alternative legal tender.

I will start from a different point of view even though I support if Bitcoin is used as a legal payment tool in every business of transactions.
The scope I want to start from a country that is not opposed and does not legalize as a means of payment like my country. This is about the government's readiness if this system is legalized.

Imagine all countries make Bitcoin as a valid payment tool, so we as users will not face with a long queue like in the bank and we will be a master of ownership of our own money with transparency that we have recognized. Equality may occur between others without any difference.
The economy will be balanced because we can use it as an asset for investment.

Pros and cons will occur according to interests.

That's not how it works. A country making Bitcoin a legal tender doesn't get control over it because they don't change anything, it simply makes Bitcoin accepted and allowed within the country, The least it can do is put some regulations on its usage like taxing transactions in some way, not allowing people to have or hold more than a certain amount in it, etc., but they can't control Bitcoin and make it centralized or anything.

Do you think that a government making Bitcoin a legal tender can have control over the blockchain and the transactions being made, etc.? No, they can't control that, all they can do is track certain transactions that are available online in the blockchain for anyone to see.

It may be true, countries that have their own currencies tend to have more difficulty adopting bitcoin as a legal currency (based on law) despite the fact that bitcoin is legally used as a means of payment in several countries that have their own currencies. El Salvador is certainly different from most other countries, but that doesn't mean other countries can't adopt bitcoin like them even though they have their own fiat currency.

I don't have valid data on how many countries where bitcoin can be used as legal tender, but it is true that bitcoin tends to be used more as an investment and trading asset than as a real use case. Indonesia is one of the countries that does not legalize bitcoin as a means of payment, but investment and trading are legal.

The opinion of making Bitcoin a legal tender is a welcome development and one the best thing that can happen to the word economic system. It happen in generalization of exchange rate and financial control thereby promoting a uniform economy across the world. Bitcoin as a legal tender will also enhance centralization of means of exchange.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be legal tender to buy things with it. That's just merchant adoption. Legal tender would be a govt designation that says the currency is the official currency of the nation. There can be more than one legal tender in a country, like El Salvador where both USD and BTC are legal tender.

But I wouldn't expect most nations to EVER make Bitcoin legal tender. Definitely not large countries that issue their own currency. It made sense for El Salvador because they don't issue their own currency, so they don't lose any economic control by adding Bitcoin as legal tender, and it was also a bit of a publicity stunt in order to try to make El Salvador a destination for bitcoiners around the world. But of course it also gives the citizens of El Salvador more confidence in using Bitcoin since the govt designates it as one of the nation's official currency, which is good for encouraging people to use it for remittances, savings, and of course spending, but its up to the people to adopt it over time.

I expect eventually there may be several smaller countries that adopt bitcoin as legal tender. But, generally, using bitcoin for payments will be done simply through merchant adoption. So basically don't expect to ever be paying taxes in Bitcoin in most places in the world, but do expect to eventually be able to buy most things with bitcoin.

The pure truth is that the only reason why bitcoin still out-beats the other cryptocurrency is because of the volatility and its ability to serve as a store of value for investors means and if you check the ratio of persons that are of the idea of using bitcoin as saving its definitely more than than those actually using it for day to day transactions.  Bitcoin turning to stable currency will lead to decline of its use because more people are happier saving their bitcoin rather than spending it.

That is very true, the government doesn't have the full control of this currency but they can regulate the usage of it. Do remember, no government can have full control of this currency. But the companies that are using it, can be under their government protocols when it comes to cryptocurrency.

Small countries or state can implement btc as legal tender as it is easier to manage and establish protocols that can be informed to its people.

We have often discussed that bitcoin cannot be controlled by any party including the government, bitcoin is free and legalized which is not interesting, in my opinion the price of bitcoin is unstable, imagine if bitcoin became a legal means of payment, in a matter of seconds the price can change and all groups will experience losses or profits in a short time.

hmm, Can You please share those variables/factors that you have in your mind about the chances of Bitcoin becoming the legal tender is zero i would love to hear it from you as in my opinion Bitcoin adoption is getting popular day by day and those years are not so far when Bitcoin will be selected as a legal tender in many countries. As we can see the world big organization has involved itself in bitcoin and it is not a little thing in my view. These kinds of actions inspire other investors to get involved in that kind of asset.

On the other hand, the first country who announce Bitcoin as a legal Tender is El Salvador. Once this country achieves its goals on the basis of intentions they bought Bitcoin, many Countries will be inspired by this. Well, TBH this is the fact that many still consider Bitcoin as a threat but give it some time they will stand with it one day.

The government is sneaky and smart in ways that you wouldn’t even realize. They can still easily implement regulations about the use of bitcoin. They have a choice to advertise or demotivate people from using bitcoin in which for sure a lot of their citizens would follow. The government has no direct control over bitcoin and will never own bitcoin as a whole but they can do a lot with bitcoin by publishing laws around it.

Yes, there are many reasons why bitcoin cannot become a currency as you mentioned and as I said. Even those of us, who knew how to use bitcoin early on will not be satisfied, or even don't need it, if bitcoin becomes stable and no longer profitable. How can the world accept bitcoin as a currency? To be honest, the idea of turning bitcoin into currency has failed and is very unlikely to be implemented. People are just trying to accumulate, accumulate bitcoin every day, I don't see anyone wanting to use bitcoin for payment around me.

I'm not really bothered about Bitcoin being legal tender. I just want it to be accepted and let me able to use it without breaking any government laws. Anybody should be allowed to accept Bitcoin in his business if he wants to. Bitcoin wasn't created to be legal tender. In this age, very few governments will openly accept Bitcoin as legal tender, it contradicts what they stand on too much. Accepting Bitcoin proves that their system is flawed.
All I just want is for the government not to fight Bitcoin even if they're against it. They shouldn't be looking for ways and propaganda against Bitcoin.

If the government allows bitcoin alone and the issue of network congestion is fixed, I believe the adoption of BTC would increase because like it or not, it is better to use bitcoin than fiat.
What matters most is the adoption, there's no point in making it legal tender if people won't use it, and people won't use it if the cost of using it is higher.


First of all, which government would own it? These people have gone to war for less things, imagine what would happen if it were possible for one government to own Bitcoin. I know they won't come together as one for the sake of owning Bitcoin.

That being said, governments can't have control over Bitcoin they don't own it, and nobody does. You can't control what you don't own. What they can do is make policies that affect people using bitcoin in that country thereby regulating it. Regulatory bodies would only do their jobs but that can't control it.

Since many governments have seen what Bitcoin is doing to those that made it legally in their country so that it will reduced some financial strength which the country are enjoying the services in the country.  I know, it take a long time before any government will make Bitcoin legal tender in their countries because they have to go into research to know the benefits and to also know the effects of Bitcoin before taking a decision towards it. Well, if the government make it legal tender, it will help those that have Bitcoin in the country to use it to purchase goods and services and pay with Bitcoin and it will also make others people to have interest on Bitcoin.

A legal means of payment is when someone is bartering with gold, if bitcoin is not suitable to be used as a legal means of payment, basically the price of bitcoin is unstable, try to imagine that the price of the payment instrument is unstable, is it suitable to be used as a means of payment?

I don't know why so many years now that there are still wanted to  ask this same question , of Bitcoin becoming legal tender and will replace fiat because talking about this is like we will be losing Gold as well from bitcoin things that is very impossible to happen(redundant because that is what I feel now)

· El Salvador became the first country to make bitcoin legal tender; not only must bitcoin be accepted as a means of payment for taxes and debts, ...bitcoin currently serves as means of exchange.

 El Salvador took the step of adopting Bitcoin as legal tender in 2021,without a second thought with the goal of promoting and assisting citizens livelihood.

The government does not recognise cryptocurrency as legal tender and will take all measures to eliminate the use of these cryptocurrencies in financing and economics.The government are not in full control of bitcoin so they wouldn't want to make it a legal tender.Even if they don't want bitcoin to influence and popularize over fait as a currency;that is a legal tender,they should make its usage available,accessible and acceptable.

But bitcoin is not the only currency in El Salvador, they are still using USD along with bitcoin and we don't know which currency is most commonly used there. Bitcoin or USD? But as we can see, the president of El Salvador is using bitcoin as an investment rather than a currency. According to a recent report, their investment has brought a profit of up to 50% and they still buy bitcoin every day with investment goals.

Outside of El Salvador, I don't think any developed country will accept bitcoin as legal tender, it's almost unlikely.

Exactly, almost this kind of question has seen in this section or forum, talking about bitcoin becoming the only currency in the world or in a country, I don't defy bitcoin, in fact I really like bitcoin and as much as they want, I also want bitcoin to be publicly used, but the thing about replacing fiat currency or even the banking system itself will be a very huge change and will take some time before we can adjust, added with that bitcoin or crypto currency is a complex thing so it is not easily to implement in all things, maybe we can view it that it will happen, but wanting that change to happen will be very hard as we know not all people are known to crypto currency stuff and also not all people are still open to adopt such changes especially when it comes to currency what more the government right.

When Bitcoin is accepted as legal tender, it doesn't mean every products and services price need to be equivalent in Bitcoin. The price is displayed in fiat price, whenever you want to pay using Bitcoin, the price will be converted in Bitcoin using payment processor.

It's because of many newbies who is trying to replace anything with Bitcoin, probably they want to change their God to Bitcoin too.

El Salvador is still a developing country.

It has to go from small nations, developing ones to middle and large nations.

So far there are only two countries where Bitcoin is legal tender and they are all small nations.

Legal tender countries (https://coinmarketcap.com/legal-tender-countries/).
El Salvador and Central African Republic.

Small countries with small economic sizes are more flexible with their national policy changes than big countries but I am very bullish that the mass adoption trend will continue.

I don't know how many times I wrote to you that that country withdrew that law a long time ago and that the only country that has Bitcoin as legal tender is El Salvador. It is a shame that a "Legendary" member is sharing false information👎

---

For everyone who, like the OP, thinks that Bitcoin should be legal tender in order to be used as a means of payment and who are obsessed with El Salvador, it would be good to finally understand that Bitcoin does not need to be legal tender in order to be successful - BTC is an alternative to existing payments methods, and all those who need a "green light" from their government to use it do not understand what Bitcoin is at all.

I am not a legendary yet but a hero member

I track you quote to October 2022 and I saw that you corrected me only one time and not many times but which is this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5466649.msg62840032#msg62840032

I did not see it

I did not know that CAR no longer have bitcoin as a legal tender.

Thanks for the correction. But shame on you that you can not correct someone politely

Indeed El Savador government more priority bitcoin as investment assets but they had adopt bitcoin for legal payment currency transaction and all sectors accepted bitcoin. Bitcoin become the main investment by El Savador and giving space become legal currency transaction will make easily for their citizen accepted bitcoin for main country investment assets for the future with increasing profitable more than 50% since keep accumulate when bitcoin dropping under $20k.
I think USD dominance difficult stopping by some countries has ideas to make bitcoin as legal currency transaction, so far only El Savador and small African country adopted bitcoin as legal currency transaction and biggest country in European or Asian still not acceptable yet bitcoin will be their legal currency transaction in the future.

BTC is so amazing and I also believe it take years for its founder to came up with such idea and produce it later on. If you are talking about making it as a legal tender, the answer will be the same. We can just look back on when did El Salvador declare this status in their BTC. It was on 2021 and that is almost 12 years, starting from the creation of BTC, however it didn't take long enough for other countries to follow the idea.

For some countries, maybe their governments and banks will never agree of it. For me, it's not a big deal but as long as they already allow BTC and other cryptos even as a means of asset only because I know many of us are still not fond of using our cryptos like a typical currency for regular use. Just don't worry because I believe that BTC is still decentralized despite of being a legal tender on some countries.

I have slightly different take on it as I don't think Bitcoin can become legal tender like we have seen in El Salvador but the intention of creating Bitcoin has been decentralised P2P transfer and I would be happy if it serves the purpose and as far as bankers and government are concerned they would always try to find a reason to stop the Bitcoin domination but since it's decentralised they can't do much.

  No doubt, Bitcoin was first invented and the technology came into market first. Nobody, 6 years ago knew well about this technology and gradually it is proved to be digital currency when a couple try to buy pizza in exchange of Bitcoins in America. Also it was required to increase the trust and demand of Bitcoin in the global market and develop a strong strength. Gradually, it makes trust and fluctuates too to threaten people little bit. Inspired from this, a different platform of Blockchain came into existence in the name of Ethereum, similar to Bitcoin Blockchain. Now the ethereum became second cryptocurrency after the Bitcoin developed its trust in the economic world. In past 6 years more than 200 cryptocurrencies have evolved as genuine and some scams too for greed of business and popularity toward crypto market. Hence the most trusted and secured cryptocurrency is Bitcoin, as it is the father of may evolved cryptocurrencies as their prices are either in the form of Bitcoin or fiat currency (USD).
  Although Bitcoin is now almost 10 years old, many countries still do not have explicit systems that restrict, regulate, or ban the cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is not currently widely accepted transactions must often be used through an exchange it operates more like cash, exchanged person to person but without a financial intermediary and tax authorities, enforcement agencies, and regulators worldwide are still debating best practices. Some countries have indirectly assented to the legal use of Bitcoin by enacting some regulatory oversight. While Bitcoin is welcomed in many parts of the world, a few countries are wary because of its volatility, decentralized nature, perceived threat to current monetary systems, and links to illicit activities like drug trafficking and money laundering.

That won't necessarily make Bitcoin a country's legal tender. It requires a process that is certainly complex and not easy. El Salvador, which has made BTC a legal tender, initially experienced many pros and cons regarding this decision. Because not everyone is ready for this mass adoption. However, as time goes by, it becomes quite amazing and works well.

So, can this be applied in other countries? of course it actually can. But the problem is, each country has its own considerations as to why they haven't legalized it until now. Or they still prohibit it as a legal means of payment. There must be quite a complex reason. However, it seems that in some countries, even though BTC is not yet legal tender, you can already use BTC as a means of payment on several platforms or merchants. It's just that it's still not that significant. The hope is that there will definitely be significant progress in the future. So Bitcoin can be increasingly known to many people and accepted in various engagements.

It is good idea to use bitcoin as the replica of the fiat currency to buy things and pay for services and and before that can achieve the country have to adopt it as the legal tender of the country but before we engage in this discussion can we first look at the out of El Salvador which have adopted bitcoin as a legal tender for two years back. If it works well there then it can use in another country as well although when more countries adopt it, it will be more effective than when only one country is using it. Our Economics are not even helping matters so if bitcoin can help us what we want then we are to use it but the government will not allow it citizens to accept bitcoin in their shops.

Dollar will not allow other countries economy to overtake it and IMF and World Bank will also not allow that to happen, if bitcoin take over the the world economy, many economic institutional workers will be jobless.

It already happens and it will spread across the globe in the coming years. But how long? That is totally uncertain for now but at least some countries like El Salvador have shown it is strong and keeping their faith in it.

Maybe if the price of Bitcoin dropped like 10 years ago, I'm sure people are not in the focus of considering this as an investment but can be accumulated for other purposes as payment. But as the status of today, we can really see that people are investing and holding their Bitcoin for profit. This means that they solely consider this an investment, not from thinking they use it to buy things or pay bills.

Bitcoin is growing in use and popularity due to bitcoin being decentralized. It is only a hypothetical event becoming legal tender. Even if you are with bitcoin you will understand that bitcoin company is not affiliated with anyone. While there is some risk for price upside the number of profits is high. Bitcoin may take time to become legal tender as many organizations have not legalized it.

That's the thing, governments can't accept the fact that they will lose control over the finances of their people, they can't let that happen and they know this will happen to a large extent if they make Bitcoin a legal tender because that will allow people to hold and use Bitcoin without any restrictions apart from the rules and regulations they might impose on them.

This is the reason why they don't do this, and this is also the reason why a lot of countries are against the adoption of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and they are always trying to either ban or keep them out of their country in one day or another because they can't let it take over the traditional financial system and make them lose control.

This is just plain untrue. Bitcoin is legal in almost every country, there's no evidence there are countries "against the adoption of Bitcoin", and almost no country in the world is trying to ban Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency.

And there's no chance that Bitcoin could, technically, "take over the financial system".

It doesn't seem like a bold move for the government to make bitcoin legal tender. Governments feel that legalizing bitcoin will take control of the financial system out of government control and people will turn to bitcoin instead of fiat currency which is why many countries have blocked legal recognition of bitcoin. In addition the central bank has warned that customers transacting through online networks may face various risks including potential financial and legal risks of the virtual currency. There are no plans on whether bitcoin will become legal in the future.

What country do you live in where Bitcoin is illegal?

China, Bangladesh... are countries that still ban bitcoin and cryptocurrency, they have never had a friendly view of bitcoin.

That's right, bitcoin has never had the ability to take over the financial system, or replace any country's currency, and that was not Satoshi's goal when creating bitcoin. But there are some bitcoin fanatics who always propagate that bitcoin is better than fiat money and will completely replace fiat money...that has caused confusion and made the government have a bad view of bitcoin. I don't understand why many people still propagate that bitcoin will replace fiat, that never makes bitcoin better.

Perhaps you are not up to date with the bitcoin situation in these 2 countries, El Salvador has started to profit from its bitcoin investment and domestic bitcoin adoption is still limited, they need more time with bitcoin . But the Central African Republic has announced that it has failed with its plan to legalize bitcoin because of the many challenges involved. As a result, there is only one country left that accepts bitcoin as legal tender, and since the debacle of the Central African Republic, we have yet to have any more small countries accept bitcoin as legal tender.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/why-bitcoin-failed-in-car

In China it's legal for individuals to hold and trade Bitcoin--they only ban their financial institutions from using Bitcoin on their balance sheets (presumably because they think it's too risky to invest in).

There are a few countries where Bitcoin is banned, but they are very few, and financially speaking very small.

I don't know of governments who have a "bad view of Bitcoin", but as a very significant financial instrument, there are going to be issues with fraud, so it's proper that they try to protect consumers from that. But they have this same "bad view" of stocks, bonds, and sovereign currency too. It's just the government being the government.

It's true, and I agree with what you say. Just for a country to recognize Bitcoin is enough to teach its subjects to adopt it in their country, and that's fine. It seems like here in our country he is recognized, but Bitcoin or cryptocurrency is not legal tender here in us.

And so far, so good for the few years that we have been here. It means that even though Bitcoin is decentralized and we know that if it is regulated by the government, people can still adopt it. And the government can also tax the crypto earners if they want to do it because they have the authority to do it.

For me that is a much more rational reason because countries that have an official currency will find it much more difficult to adopt bitcoin as a legal currency. Countries have regulations that regulate the issue of official currency and if we think they want to change bitcoin to legal currency then it must go through parliamentary approval. This is where they will run into problems because there will be challengers from several factions joining them.

Very few countries accept bitcoin as legal tender and if this relationship is linked generally only El Salvador may be legal in the use of bitcoin as a legal means of transaction. Most countries accept the adoption of bitcoin as an investment asset and that is also what my country does with Cryptocurrencies in general and bitcoin in particular.

Well it is indeed a situation that is sometimes very difficult to accept because when a country tries to legalize bitcoin as an alternative payment then indirectly they also have to prepare some supporting facilities just like El Savador did.
But even so it does not rule out the possibility when bitcoin continues to grow then I think it is still very possible for some countries to provide leeway in terms of regulation for bitcoin and it is not impossible for this to be used as a legal means of payment in the end.

I personally actually for now do not really matter whether bitcoin will be used as a legal tender or not in my country because when now the government in my country is starting to accept and provide facilities for bitcoin to continue to grow it has become a very good thing even though currently bitcoin is still considered a commodity but still it is a good thing until now so that when the current regulations are favorable for my country and bitcoin because they still do not take banning action it is very pleasant for me.

The government will never go against their plan as well which makes it hard to say that Bitcoin will totally be considered as legal tender is all countries. But it was a good thing to see that some countries and their leaders are supporting Bitcoin which probably some country leaders will also reconsider it just like the others did. Like in my country where the use of Bitcoin is not officially considered legal tender and I have no complaints about it at least it was not banned which I think was good enough.

Too difficult to assume that it will become a legal tender in my country and to others for a few years but I have faith and optimism. Government leaders have different views about Bitcoin which also could affect the future of Bitcoin.

Make as a legal tender is not a bad idea to you, but it is hundred percent rejected in most of the countries because it is a digital currency, how would a government allow bitcoin to rule them? No government will ever allow that to happen. Bitcoin maybe accepted as a means of exchange or payment but it will never take over a country own currency, bitcoin has been accepted all over the world and it has a limit because some countries don’t accept
Countries can partially accept bitcoin as digital currency and the citizens must make use of it, the possibility of making bitcoin a legal tender.

Bitcoin is a digital currency that is not legalized in many countries. The question is, if a country does not legalize Bitcoin, can Bitcoin be used as a legal means of payment? Of course the answer is no, so for me personally Bitcoin is enough, like now, many people keep it in their wallets and don't need to get any permission from the government, we automatically regulate it ourselves.

wait, LEGAL IN MOST EVERY COUNTRY? when you call Legal that means it is at least adopted by the government? is that what you mean?
and there are almost no country who tries banning bitcoin? all you said is what is untrue.

you have supported bitcoin all over your coin but here? no chance of taking over financial system? you sounds like contradicting lol.

Here's the list on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cryptocurrency_by_country_or_territory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cryptocurrency_by_country_or_territory)

As you can see, there are very few countries that make Bitcoin illegal.

Of course, as I've said here many times here, the term "Legal Tender" means something completely different, and it essentially means that it's illegal not to accept Bitcoin, in other words, a government shoving it down people's throat even if they don't want to transact in Bitcoin.

But most people assume "legal" means, "you can hold or trade Bitcoin and you will not be put in jail". That's true in almost every country in the world.


You can support Bitcoin and still believe it cannot "take over the financial system".

For suggestions payment still has the opportunity to be applied in Bitcoin during the trip Bitcoin has found a vast adoption throughout the world, thus alternatives to payments using Bitcoin can be made by countries that have regulations regarding legal currencies. But when it comes to Bitcoin as an official currency in a country is still quite difficult to apply because of various considerations that make things much more unlikely. El Salvador can make binding rules because before they did not have official currencies in the country so that the potential of Bitcoin as an official currency became the right choice.

Logically what is applied by the state about Bitcoin is quite satisfying as long as this asset is not prohibited. Bitcoin can be used as an investment asset that is more than enough even though there are regulations that regulate their levels. I also did not mind about my country that received Bitcoin as an investment asset because it was indeed a whole is still quite profitable for every individual in carrying out investment. With the legality of Bitcoin as an investment asset opening the way for us to achieve financial freedom and we also do not have problems with the law when running it.

Assuming the first country that made BTC legal tender are not doing well or enjoying the system in their country, that is when other countries will be afraid to make it legal tender in their countries because they have see how it has contributed to the growth of El Salvador economy that is giving them confidence to do the sama thing to make it legal tender.

The day your government will make BTC legal tender in your country, just try to create a business and introduce BTC as a payment and it will make the bitcoiners in that environment to be coming to your store to buy goods and services from you and pay with BTC and, it will make others business men and women around you to also introduce BTC in their business too.

You can accept Bitcoin as payment in almost every country in the world already. No new laws are required.

The reason people don't do this is because you would need to wait around for up to 30 minutes, and pay up to 30 US dollars for a single transaction.

Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are impractical for almost all mainstream transactions. This is not a government conspiracy, it's just a technical limitation.

Are you pointing out that this is what slows the rate or the reason behind the lack adoption of system by the people?
The simple remains that the big players will not fold hands to watch this, as this is a practical illusion.

 Decentralisation of Financial Power

You can do more research on this to get clarity and not judge from a time based transaction process as the limiting factor.

So if I pay for my coffee at Starbucks with Bitcoin and I have to pay a total of $38.50 for a cup of coffee and wait 30 extra minutes for it, this is all just a "practical illusion"?

And in case you haven't noticed, Bitcoin has done nothing whatsoever to "decentralize financial power" and in fact it's centralized that power more than ever before as the market is controlled by the movements of big Bitcoin investors, most people use centralized brokers to buy and sell Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is effectively regulated just like any other investment asset is because people must pay taxes on their earnings lest they want to end up in jail.

Bitcoin works just fine as an investment instrument, but it's nothing more than that.

Changing the previous system will be much more difficult and perhaps this is the reason why it is difficult for other countries to implement bitcoin as a legal transaction tool. Because having an official currency can conflict with regulations that will make bitcoin a transaction tool unless they make bitcoin an alternative.

Even though they have established bitcoin as a legal means of payment and transactions, El Salvador still uses fiat currency as a means of transactions. But the advantage they have is that bitcoin is free to use to buy anything because bitcoin is legal as a transaction tool there.

Bitcoin transactions can cost up to $30 US dollars. Bitcoin is absolutely not free to use.

It's the very opposite of free, actually.

For Bitcoin to be illegal tender in some countries I think that Do we take much time for some countries to accept a bitcoin as a legal tender and if all the countries Now we know quite well happen to accept Bitcoin as a legal tender that we really affect the existence of bitcoin because the value will not be of potential as it is now so that is why I will not be of that opinion that every country should legalise the uses of bitcoin for good and the services transaction in that particular country, that is why many people today who is into Bitcoin continue to make a profit whenever the target well in Bitcoin, but seeing Bitcoin as a traditional currency like a Fiat currency it will depreciate the values of Bitcoin.

It is obvious that since bitcoin has been introduced to the world, it has more influence and since it has been Gathering influence that is how it value continue to increase but when you emphasize on economy of any country I can sense that bitcoin can help to build up some people's economy in a process whereby the invest in Bitcoin and the monitor it for the betterment of that part of the flag country because Bitcoin add a value every year and the values continue to grow daily.

the objective of most of people who is into cryptocurrency especially Bitcoin always wanted bitcoin to be a legal tender and they don't know the effect of Bitcoin being a legal tender across other countries, a few countries can accept Bitcoin as a legal tender but it does not have any meaning or any effect because there is already an existing Fiat currency which is known as a traditional currency in which many people use in exchange of goods and the services so Bitcoin will still not add more value from my perspective.

It is very clear and understanding that if Bitcoin happen to become a legal tender all the Central Bank across the world will make sure that bitcoin will not be valid again because they will not be support bitcoin to be a Legal tender because what they have in mind will be that bitcoin is coming to take over their market, even many politicians will willy kick against bitcoin becoming a legal tender because from the initial politicians does not like Bitcoin existence, they always have their mentality thinking that a Bitcoin will take over value of a traditional currency.

True. The only game here Is just allowing Bitcoin remain how it is now, because making it a fait will likely decrease it value, and then become infringe by big players.
And we know the rising value of Bitcoin is pegged on the fact of low supply and high demand, and potential profit returns. Making it fait will have no value.

No, Bitcoin being a legal tender will still be decentralized, because the Blockchain network is decentralized.Even if bitcoin has been adopted by the governments worldwide as legal tender it will still remain decentralized because that's the nature of the currency.Bitcoin cannot be controlled by any central controlling authority like banks and government because the bitcoin blockchain network has multiple independent processing system called nodes that runs the same blockchain computer programme.Bitcoin blockchain network has been created for financial freedom in it's unique way.So it's impossible for the government to shut down all the nodes in the world,they can only stop the nodes in their country but it still remains pointless because all the nodes outside their country will still work actively for transactions,and if a government wants to stop my transaction it simply means the government will have to stop all the computing nodes worldwide which is impossible.

It will be hard to make Bitcoin a legal tender. Bitcoin have a decentralized system, at such has no control by centralized body or financial institution like CBN and others. Apart from that, Bitcoin have a high exchange rate compare to other legal tender. Take for instance, 1dollar is = 1,700 to Nigeria currency. But 1bitcoin is over 5,000 dollar, which if convert to Nigeria money is over #500,000.
Price of Bitcoin and it's high exchange rate has made it not to be assemble by common man. So it will be very difficult for Bitcoin to become a legal tender.
Even if Bitcoin is to be a centralized system where financial institutions can have control over it activities., Then my question is, what about the price of Bitcoin? Because I truly believed that many people will never want the price or the exchange rate of Bitcoin to go down because many bought it in high rate and will never want their money to be a lost. So Bitcoin becoming a legal tender is not easy.

if this will happen Bitcoin will be the main currencies or let say the government will allow individuals to use Bitcoin for paying some goods in the groceries store then this takes to long to implement some places in some countries don't have enough high speed Internet and we all know that to transact Bitcoin is we need to have an enough internet in order to make a smooth and fast transaction. So it will be hard to those countries who have a slow internet connection. But if we don't thing about the internet and focus on the Bitcoin this still it is a good one.

In El Salvador, the lightning network is utilized, offering transactions at minimal expense.  On-chain transactions can be costly, but they shouldn't be relied upon primarily.  This is not only due to their expense but also because they are not conducive to efficient point-of-sale electronic debit payments due to the nature of 0-conf.  Despite high fees, using Bitcoin can be less expensive than traditional banking charges sometimes.


The argument doesn't seem very valid, considering that developing countries are the primary users of Bitcoin as a currency. 

  Adopting Bitcoin as a national currency—and not just as a payment instrument or a personal investment hedge yields significant advantages, both to individual citizens and especially to their governments. These advantages may not be immediately apparent and they certainly require a tectonic change of perspective, but they will gradually become evident with small steps toward adoption in some regions. It is transparent, impossible to forge, more fungible, divisible, exchangeable and transmittable than dollars, Unlike gold, it has a firmly capped and fully disclosed supply. But that’s just the beginning!
   When a national government adopts Bitcoin, it is demonstrating remarkable restraint and accountability. It is the ultimate demonstration of provable trust. The government will no longer be able to water down citizen wealth by running the printing press, nor borrow against unborn generations. Instead, they will need to collect every dollar that they spend—or convince bond holders that they can repay their debts. They will need to balance their checkbooks, spend more transparently and wear their books on their sleeves. All good things.

If they aren't on-chain transactions, then they aren't decentralized, and they aren't actually Bitcoin. You might as well just use a bank.

Credit card transactions are rarely more than a dollar or two, and take no more than a few seconds.

Bitcoin is absolutely unsuitable for mainstream transactions.




No country in the world uses Bitcoin as a mainstream means of transacting--because to do so would be a practical impossibility.

Bitcoin transactions are too expensive to be a viable legal tender.

Monero would be better imo and comes with additional privacy features. Satoshi expressed interested in baking in the kind of privacy features Monero has, specifically group signatures and key blinding, to name two (see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg9074#msg9074). Nicolas Van Saberhagen (N.S.) is like Satoshi Nakamoto (S.N.). I believe there to be a connection. Maybe Satoshi went on to work with Saberhagen on Monero. I also believe Satoshi would also agree BTC is no longer the peer-to-peer currency minable on personal computers vision he envisioned and Monero is closer to that. Bitcoin is a great investment and store of wealth but as legal tender I think that ship has sailed a long time ago. I guess you could say Bitcoin Cash could be a better candidate for legal tender given the cheaper tx fees but that's a whole other argument.

I don't understand what you mean, are you judging from the perspective of exchange rate as the limiting factor of making bitcoin legal tender?
From your write-up are you saying because someone bought at higher price, so making bitcoin legal tender won't be possible?
You are looking from very far angle and it seems you don't understand what legal tender means?  Because if you do you would have known the difference between exchange rate and what legal tender is all about.
As far as I know $1= 1290 NGN, and is baseless to prove this will in anyway also be a  limiting  factor or  influence it.
I BTC is at $67,xxxK converting it to your fait which is NGN =80 000 000+ . Always endeavour to do proper findings before commenting and read  through thread carefully.

We all know making bitcoin legal tender is pushing it too far from it initial purpose, and would be safer we make use of it as it is now, since its not just a digital currency but also one of the most valuable asset with a promising future. We just need to accumulate, and invest wisely with a long term approach to enjoy the dividends of it for generational wealth.

Bitcoin Cash is more centralized, and therefore more scalable to higher transaction loads at a cheaper price, but it's still nowhere near fast/cheap enough to seriously take on mainstream everyday transactions--no blockchain-based architecture could do this.

Satoshi never envisioned taking over the world's transactions with Bitcoin or anything using it's architecture. It's simply not a problem he was trying to solve--and it shows.

Decentralization, and thwarting government subpoenas into transactions, comes at a cost--and most people don't want to do that anyhow.

The only viable mainstream digital currencies for everyday transactions will be centralized architectures e.g. like Haypenny (https://haypenny.net/whitepaper.html) currencies.

What the government threatens to do and what the government can realistically do are two different things. Whether the government does or does not make Bitcoin legal tender has absolutely no influence on the decentralized and free nature of the blockchain. They will not have influence or control over Bitcoin either way.

Legal tender at this point is nothing but a formal declaration of acknowledgement and support for the blockchain technology called Bitcoin. Which is a good thing for the inevitable international adoption for the new generation of money.

Hodl it. Love it.

I love El Salvador, and I love everything Bukele has done, for that reason I would like to be in El Salvador, I would also like to work in anything but get paid in bitcoin, because in El Salvador it is the law that you can apply with btc There are people who are very against bitcoin, but I think it's because they don't Understand , they don't read, they don't do anything to understand about money that represent bitcoin, I'm one of the people who's very pro bitcoin and I always look for and talk to people , some They have many doubts, but is good when you implement the idea of Bitcoin, in fact what the government of Salvador does is Something that can happen for the Better , Because Bukele's policies are very good, economically they should give him a Nobel Prize.


HODL HODL.

If you mean legal tender for a specific country then it is ok especially if you are talking about El Salvador but if you consider the whole world then legal tender is not ok.
Legal tender means the entire economic activity of that country equal contribution in local currency as well as Bitcoin. El Salvador's president declared bitcoin legal tender in that country, as well as commodity exchanges in that country. But as far as I know few countries in the world have legalized Bitcoin but most of the countries have issued strict legal warnings on Bitcoin. However, due to the increasing popularity of Bitcoin, there is a possibility that Bitcoin will be legalized in different countries of the world in the future.

Bitcoin become legal tender could be using as payment transaction including all kinds of transaction such as adopt by El Savador government after allowing bitcoin acceptable as currency transaction. I think all countries have make bitcoin as legal but not for currency exchange transaction,
such in with most Asian countries bitcoin have including wit h taxes transaction but only legal for commodity assets and strict bitcoin for legal payment transaction.
El Savador have declared bitcoin become legal currency transaction since 2021 and not only active for accepting as payment currency but also El Savador government keep active accumulate and hold bitcoin until right now with bigger amount.

Read through this interview by Gracy Chen (Bitget MD) with cointelegraph and you will see it's just a matter of time as Lugano in Switzerland now accept BTC as means of payment. Workers can also pay their taxes through it. https://cointelegraph.com/news/cryptos-role-daily-payments-beyond-lugano

I remember those days when I am still new in crypto that I see and happen to experience that bitcoin transaction fee is less than a dollar , but now never that i happen to experience this low fees and hoping that this will come to happen again in our time now specially that now bitcoin is continuously growing year after year.

I don't think we'll see any solution to bitcoin's transaction fee problem anytime soon, especially as the price of bitcoin climbs higher every day, and transaction fees will continue to rise even higher.
Recently, there have also been some people who have created some threads saying that they wish bitcoin would be legal tender in their country and replace fiat currency. But are they rich enough to use bitcoin without worrying about transaction fees? Are they generous and willing to pay an extra $4-5 per transaction just to buy breakfast for under $2?

Satoshi made transactions for Bitcoin intentionally slow and expensive so there would be a cost of being a node in the network. It was never designed to handle "normal" everyday transactions, only the very special ones that people trying to avoid the government need.

And most people I talk to actually don't know that Bitcoin transactions are so expensive and slow because they use a broker app which "buys" Bitcoin (or whatever crypto) for them and puts their purchase in some centralized database.

Lightning network is real bitcoin.  To send satoshis, you need to have channels backed by real bitcoin.  And you retain the ability to return to them on-chain whenever desired, without entrusting custody to any external entity.  Sounds enough decentralized to me.  


Credit card companies such as Visa typically impose a fee of at least 2.5% along with a fixed charge of $0.20 in many countries.  For instance, if you purchase an item worth $50, the credit card company would receive about $1.50.  With Lightning, the fee might be less than 10% of that amount, though it largely depends on your setup.  


I didn't mention "mainstream".  My point is that it does serve a purpose, even in developing countries such as Nigeria.  In such countries, it gains more attention than in developed. 

Lets see the way this year is going to be after the experience of the halving and the new all time high of bitcoin getting close to $200,000 then we may say that some countries may because of that make decisions on adopting bitcoin as a legal tender, just as we have it with El-Salvador and Central African Republic, there is likely we see more countries into this adoption as a legal tender before the year runs out, because bitcoin has been globally seen and recognized as a digital means of making payment.

Why is the direction on counterfeit money and isn't there any other way that can be used so that payments using counterfeit money can be reduced. Fraud does not recognize bitcoin or fiat because it is done by immoral individuals and I think the involvement of fraud is not based only because of the problem of the Fiat and Bitcoin currency itself.

Bitcoin can be an alternative for some countries because there is no way there are many countries that apply Bitcoin as a legal transaction tool. Because every country has rules governing the distribution of Fiat currencies and how to make transactions.

It took a long time to see Bitcoin as a legal source of device because financial institutions and central banks have their own valid products that are officially used. In contrast to El Salvador because they do not have official currencies so they are easier to apply to the wider community. El Salvador has succeeded in making Bitcoin as an official currency and they bind with much clearer and better rules.

Bitcoin legal documents can only be accepted when the government of that country wants to accept them as legal documents, moreover, it is not possible to accept bitcoin legal documents. Because the developed countries of the world have become the gateway to the law, many countries have not given Bitcoin as a legal document, so if the government does not want it, Bitcoin can never be legalized as a legal document. However, there are many countries in which the government may not be able to manage Bitcoin if it falls into our hands today, and the situation will become even worse.

Sure, but those "channels" are not decentralized...


And a credit card transaction for, say, a dollar would cost you perhaps 10 cents. I still think this is exorbitant (my platform charges $0.005 for all transactions, forever, always, and can scale to millions of transactions per second), but this is the sort of level LN would need to get to just to equal the status quo, and then it's unclear what the benefit would be over plain old credit card transactions...


But even a small country like Nigeria would need something that would perform at levels far higher than anything using blockchain could do.

But of course from my viewpoint, if you are going to go with a centralized architecture, do it the right way, which means not using a thing that was never meant to do that...

There are two directions, the point is that when trading is done with its own decisions, it certainly minimises the loss at any time including getting the maximum profit to save it. It is different if the currency is done by 2 people directly either crypto assets or physical goods, if the seller / owner of bitcoin sends an amount of 100$ last year at the time of ath maybe 14000$ see what will happen today, and when the recipient realises this of course it can be concluded how lucky he is. bitcoin is indeed an asset but if it is made into a payment instrument that will go against the nature of value and the nature of fiat money in general. this kind of transaction can occur because of the innovation and awareness of each and voluntarily it is okay, this is just my daydream why not all countries legalise and only allow trading like investment instruments in general. I myself also want to accommodate bitcoin when the price is cheap maybe barter with some one, unfortunately the opportunity at that time has not been in my favour :D

You might say they lack complete permissionlessness, but on the whole, they exhibit a significant degree of decentralization.  I can establish channels with almost anyone, my coins are not held in custody by them, and I can transfer my coins across the network by using channels belonging to others.


In the LN, you would never pay $0.10 (144 satoshis) to send $1 (1440 satoshis).  You would pay something like 10 satoshis, which is like a dollar cent.  That's the benefit. 

Is your platform Haypenny?  If so, what would occur in the event of its closure or bankruptcy?  How would users retrieve their funds?

It's not even that close to 100k and you're at 200k already? Wow! Let me in on what exchange you're getting those numbers because I really want to sell my bitcoins there. It's going to be difficult for bitcoin to even do that if you ask me, it's having a hard time going to 100k right now even though bitcoin ETFs are a success so how are you coming up with those numbers because that's not going to happen anytime soon for bitcoin. I don't know about you but CAR might not be enough in terms of adoption to push it to that level but I'm just speculating stuff, bitcoin always surprises us anyway so I guess, we can only wait and see.

Even until now bitcoin is still not close to the price of $100k how could they jump to $200k because now before bitcoin steps to a higher price they must try to beat expectations where the price of $100k that we have always discussed in the last 2 years comes true.
Making bitcoin a legal payment option in one of these countries is not an easy thing because there needs to be strong regulations and of course the support must be strong also from its citizens because it is certain that pros and contracts will occur when making bitcoin a legal means of payment in a country and we may know what happened where El Savador became a reference even though at this time they are still very good at bitcoin adoption but until now there is still a lot of debate going on for the issue of adopting bitcoin san making them a payment option in their country so it is possible that other countries that want to follow must be prepared with this possibility in the end.

The same thing that would occur to any project, including Bitcoin. You could certainly argue that Bitcoin itself has a more established system of governance, but that's the only difference. Bitcoin is a piece of code just like our system is. In both cases there would be ways of winding down the project while allowing people to safely retrieve their data.

To be clear, adding the word, "blockchain" doesn't do anything by itself, since it ultimately relies on a data store like any other system. In the case of Bitcoin, the physical integrity of the data store is well protected by its redundancy, and the software in the project is well-governed by the organization and the fact that there are a lot of eyes in the project.

Virtually all the world's wealth is stored on data systems that have a data store, software, and governance, Some of those systems are more secure than others. Blockchain does not inherently make a system more secure, and it doesn't inherently make a project a safer place to store your wealth, as is evident from thousands of failed blockchain projects out there.

Indeed, unless the project is an extremely visible one like Bitcoin, you are much better off trusting a real company whose owners can be identified and sued should they be negligent with your holdings, rather than project started by anonymous people.

To answer your question directly, our users would be taken care of, lest all of my own personal wealth be taken away in lawsuits. Since we're a normal registered American corporation, so I have to fear something like that.

And while there are thousands of failed blockchain projects to point at in the last 10 years that have lost consumers billions of dollars, can you point to the last time a major American bank has lost the savings accounts of its holders? I'm not saying any data store is infallible, but non-blockchain data stores for wealth have a far better track record than blockchain data stores, despite the mythology spread around by Bitcoin fans. And with most Bitcoin holdings these days being stored in some centralized database governed by some corporation, it would seem as though most consumers understand this, too.

It's called decentralization, and no other system on the planet has achieved it to such a degree.  I have much more confidence in it compared to any arbitrary centralized platform.


Anonymous people starting it doesn't transform it into a permissioned network.  Yours is undeniably permissioned.  You cannot ensure the longevity of my wealth over decades.  What if you alter your conditions along the way?  What if you devalue your currency on purpose?  What if regulations change unexpectedly?  What if your system encounters data breaches or hacking incidents?  What if a conflict arises, or a war, resulting in the confiscation of all assets belonging to your company?

Yes, but the word "decentralization" alone doesn't mean anything. Bitcoin in particular is pretty safe (although nothing is 100%). But lots of projects that were decentralized pretty well have failed.

Bitcoin's code base, for instance, is by definition centralized. It has very good governance which is what makes it safer, but the point here is that Bitcoin's system security stems from the same things that other system's security does, not by some kind of magic.


LOL, absolutely nobody can "ensure the longevity of my wealth over decades" and if anybody tells you any different they are trying to steal something from you. Bitcoin could crash in value tomorrow (it's done this before), just like any other asset.



Haypenny has published the Haypenny Promise (https://haypenny.net/#help-promise) which is our contract with our community. This is a set of six simple agreements we have with our users. Hence the short answer to your question would be, "we would get sued and/or arrested" which is the same reason Citibank can't just keep the money in your checking account for themselves.


All of these things could happen to Bitcoin as well, and could happen to you the deed on your house, your car, your brokerage account, and absolutely anything you own including your Bitcoin since your private keys are vulnerable to rubber hose cryptanalysis (and good luck trying to prove "you really owned that" when you complain to the police since, well, how would they ever be sure?).

Bitcoin is not magic. It's a store of wealth based on software and data stores and governance. It is doing very well, and it is a very safe system, but so are lots of other systems in our civilization.

Nobody can totally ensure anything in life, I know.  But there are certain things that are more resilient to change than others, and people put their wealth on assets that have the best chance to remain intact over the long term.  You wouldn't invest in the USD by saving in a bank account.  Why?  Because it changes.  It is printed like a toiler paper and its value is tied to whatever government is elected in the US.  Then, you need to take into account the credibility and integrity of the bank you're entrusting your wealth for decades.

Gold, on the other hand, is much better to keep your savings to, because it is a property.  Unlike a fiat currency, gold isn't subject to that arbitrary manipulation.  I'd bet that preserving wealth through gold holdings over the next three decades would outperform doing so in USD.

Bitcoin could crash, yes, but it has proven itself as a savvy investment over the long run, same as with gold.  People prioritize property over security because property possesses a self-sustaining nature with minimal human intervention.  You can't really argue that your platform is more or less the same with that. 

Bitcoin can't crash in value but in a bear market situation. I don't seem to understand why some are still doubting the possibility of investing in Bitcoin. Just like Gold, Diamond all thus asset has already stayed through good and bad times not to talk of bitcoin that has already proven to be a trusted asset to invest in.
All asset experience downtime if am to use such word, that doesn't imply they loss the value in the market.  In as much there is supply and Demand influencing bitcoin price it value will keep increasing.

Sure thing is nothing is predictable, and everyone chooses to invest based on there knowledge about such asset of which they are ready to risk there resources for. In essence do what suites you.

In various times in history, had you invested in gold you would have either lost your shirt or made a fortune. Gold goes up and down in value just like every other hyped-up asset. And the USD is no different. There is no "magic asset" that only goes up in value.

And quite the contrary, like any other investment instrument, gold absolutely is subject to arbitrary manipulation, as many major market makers in commodities have shown.


Bitcoin lost 75% of its value only two years ago. There's absolutely nothing stopping that from happening again. Or it could double in price. Who knows. Unlike gold, Bitcoin has no practical value in the world (it's not even Monera), so it's a pure meme investment--the value depends on how people "feel". That could change at any moment.

And yes, Haypenny currencies are also meme investments (once we're out of beta they will be  anyhow ;) ). Haypenny allows people to place bets on very small amounts e.g. just a dollar or less since the transaction fee is so low (a half cent, aka a "haypenny", and it will be this price forever).

Unlike blockchain-based currencies, however, a Haypenny currency could (and should  :)) be used for every single transaction on the planet because the platform will scale to that level while undercutting every other form of high-scale value transfer by at least an order of magnitude.

I wouldn't suggest anybody put their whole life savings in either asset, however. They might be fun places to make a little money sometimes, but these instruments are very volatile.

if it will be possible you don't need to wait for 30mins, just show them the transaction id, that its already paid,its digital remember? at the same time if the lightning network will be available it will be more faster,

El Salvador is the first country to declare Bitcoin as its legal tender. As simple as we are discussing here but for the President of this country it was not that easy at all. The decision to accept a virtual coin as a legal tender of a country is certainly more challenging and more difficult. Before the adoption of Bitcoin as a legal tender in El Salvador, there may have been a lot of debate about the fact that the digital currency they are relying on so much can disappear from the market at any time and if this digital currency disappears from the market at any time, this  But they cannot file any case or anything else. Despite all the arguments and controversies, the president of this country remained steadfast in his decision and announced Bitcoin as a legal document in his country. He may be able to stick to his decision but the President of other countries cannot take such decision so easily because if the decision goes against them they will lose their power.

For once more, I don't argue what is possible to happen.  I'm focusing on what is likely to happen on the long term, based on the historical trends and inherent characteristics of each asset.


Then, I frankly don't know what to say.  If you fail to recognize the significance of censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer, incorruptible, capped, permissionless cash, then perhaps there's a lack of imagination on your part. 


You don't have a choice.  It's not a "don't like that asset, so I'm not risking my life savings".  In life, you're presented with choices, and whether you recognize it or not, opting not to act is still a form of action (albeit a rather poor one).  If you perceive saving in Bitcoin and gold as risky, then you're essentially saving in USD.  You can't opt out of storing your savings in an asset or currency.

Bitcoin was invented for one reason: to create a numerically-delineated trading mechanism that would resist government subpoenas, and this is a something that indeed serves a purpose (so I overstated it somewhat by saying "no practical value").

The reason I overstated it was because Bitcoin was only partially successful at this since the publicly-viewable ledger allows authorities (and anybody else) to employ chain analysis in order to triangulate transactions.

Hence to fully realize Bitcoin's only unique purpose, you either need to add on the original model (e.g. use a mixer, or engage in other kinds of tradecraft), or use a follow-on architecture that solves this problem e.g. Monera.

For me, Monera is the only "correct" cryptocurrency because it actually accomplishes what blockchain was supposed to accomplish--so at this point, insofar as Monera is a viable system, Bitcoin doesn't really have a practical reason to exist when there's a better alternative.


There are literally millions of investment instruments besides Bitcoin, gold and USD. There's land, stocks, other digital currencies, private businesses, bonds, cars, watches, fine art, baseball cards, Hummel dolls, and so on. You can invest in gold or Bitcoin by physically holding it or through an ETF.  You can buy currencies of other countries. You can bet on horses at the track or on who will catch the next touchdown pass on Sunday.

All these instruments have risk, and they all have the ability to go up or down in value. It's certainly not the case that gold and Bitcoin are the only possible investments in the world which will go up in value over time.

It is not an easy thing to revolutionize a system, especially the financial system in a very large scope of countries, what El Salvador is doing is also still considered an experiment in implementing bitcoin as a means of payment and now it hasn't been running for long, due to the volatile nature of the price, it is quite risky in making decisions as a legal currency in a country because it will be quite complicated to convert into a stable standardized value, although it is true that if there is a bitcoin legal document that has controversy with other applicable laws it could be a mess, but if it is really serious then just revise it in my opinion.

We don't know how El Salvador will be in the next 10 years whether it will be better or vice versa, we can't be sure of that, but certainly now that they have declared, the government of El Salvador has benefited a lot from bitcoin.

In response to the op, I would say that op is completely wrong.
First and foremost, making bitcoin a legal tender in any country by the country's government does not make bitcoin lose its decentralized nature, the bitcoin network remains decentralized, the government only can control the much bitcoins in their possession, but can't control the bitcoin network, and as we all know, any one who controls the bitcoin network is who controls bitcoin itself, and possibly the entire crypto market, and as it stands, no body controls the bitcoin network, which means, the network still remain decentralized even if every country in this world decided to make bitcoin a legal tender, the government of this countries still won't have access to the bitcoin network.

And Secondly, bitcoin becoming a legal tender does not mean people will stop using fiat currency completely, making bitcoin a legal tender only mean that, those who don't like transacting in fiat now have an option to opt to, while those who transact in fiat can actually keep transacting in fiat, bitcoin and fiat currency can co-exist as legal tenders in any country that wishes to add and accept bitcoin as a legal tender.

The actual legal definition of "legal tender", as it's derived from the US Constitution, is that it forces those winning in a judgement in court to accept the given currency as payment whether they want to or not.

That's it. That's all "legal tender" means in actual legal terms.

What those asking for "legal tender" here seem to want is:

1. Bitcoin to be legal to hold and trade--which it already is in almost every country in the world. No new laws are necessary.

2. They want to use the power of the government to promote Bitcoin so it goes up in price (and they wish to do this while screwing over every other digital currency like Ether, Dogecoin, Haypenny currencies, and so on).

El Salvador country are very comfortable with their legal tender they introduced to their country because they have potential government officials that have the knowledge, and they know how it can bring progress to the country and they are enjoying it all over the country today, but for the whole world to make BTC legal tender it will be difficult for many countries because there are some villages where some of our farms crops is be produced and some of them have never hear about BTC, and they are familiar with their local currency in their business.

Some countries thought that BTC will not reach this stage before it will disappear from the market, but BTC has surprised many countries with this new ATH in the market, and many government are fully ready to make it legalize so that it can go round all over the country for their citizens to have the knowledge of BTC.

Well said mate.
If you read my thread you will understand that I never said Bitcoin will lose it decentralized nature but I was pointing the fact that it won't occur because The big players won't support options of people choosing between Bitcoin or fait as that would affect them since they have total control over fait. And we know no government will want to make Bitcoin legal mainly because they can't allow the masses see possibility because they control the money supply.

If you are saying they control the possession of Bitcoin the country will have, is it not same thing as running a centralized supply of Bitcoin? To the masses,  I never talked about the Bitcoin network. As no Big player will be ready for the deal of Decentralisation of Financial Power.

We are simply discussing the fate of the Economy in respect to this.
Carefully read the thread again.

Bitcoin is legal in almost every country in the world. What are you talking about?

Legal tender I mean

What do you think the difference is? If everybody is free to buy, sell and hold Bitcoin, what more do you want?

Personally I think we're past the point of asking permission from the government. This whole legal tender thing means nothing to me.

Between the vaccine genocide, genocide in Gaza, money laundering & genocide in Ukraine etc, it's safe to say there is no law.

Governments all the world are clearly a front to a cabal of super rich parasites who hide in the shadows & pull the strings. Why are people still complying with criminals?

The original idea of cryptocurrencies was to have permission-less networks the government cannot control.

The other concerning thing: Bitcoin & most of crypto are turning into surveillance coins. it's getting harder to not comply - hence why a lot of hardcore freedom fighting Bitcoiners are moving to Monero.

A legal tender and currency has a difference, though we maybe able to use bitcoin to buy and sell for a product or service but it is not widely accepted yet or shall we say generally accepted as a payment for debts, taxes, loans, and other financial responsibilities nor it could be used to settle a simple road violations and other damages in properties.
I understand your point, bitcoin has been now accepted by many merchants and service providers, but unlike the legal tender, it is widely accepted and has access to everything in such country. That is what the other people want for bitcoin. Just like what El Salvador did, recognizing bitcoin as a legal tender.  We all know that's not gonna be easy due to some issues in the network. The unstable transaction fees and speed will be the primary issue when bitcoin is being used just in our daily transactions like how we used our debits and credit cards.

Any vendor is free to accept Bitcoin if they want. But guess what: many vendors don't want to because it can cost up to $30 and take 30 minutes for a single transaction.

So what then? You want to use the power of the government to force people to accept Bitcoin even if they don't want to?

So Bitcoin went from a libertarian ideal to... people asking their government to get the cops to shove Bitcoin down people's throats. Amazing.

This is everything the original founders of Bitcoin fought against.

And make no mistake: the minute you accept help from the government, then... the government is going to want its pound of flesh. That's how it works in the real world, folks.

Not  because the price of Bitcoin will grow that high means Countries will adopt as legal tender this
coin because it is not , remember that the issue about bitcoin being hinder to be adopted is the
decentralization in which government cannot stand against this and cannot be controlled.

Talking about legalization, except for a few countries, Bitcoin is actually legal in most countries and they aswell accept it as a means of payment for certain transactions and services but then it's not recognized as a legal tender in most countries an that's actually what the discussion has mainly been on, most countries still see Bitcoin as something they can't control and so it shouldn't be adopted as a legal tender just yet until they could probably have some kind of control around it then they can say they would look into making it a legal tender.

Been a legal tender in most countries will give Bitcoin a very different type of adoptability much more than it has gotten currently asides which it may be just used for payments but not recognized as a legal tender in such countries.

I think bitcoin will triumph big in an African country first. like big, then we may see like big currency adoption in other countries in Europe and like, not just atms, but almost a common knowledge currency like euro/dollar.

No, it won't. A government forcing Bitcoin down the throats of its citizens won't change the fact that Bitcoin costs up to 30 US dollars per transaction and can take up to 30 minutes to complete.

No government can repeal the laws of physics, which is what it would take to make Bitcoin fast and cheap enough to be viable for everyday transactions. In almost every country, people are free to use Bitcoin however they like. They don't do it because it's impractical, not because it's illegal.

PLEASE STOP ASKING FOR BITCOIN TO BE MADE "LEGAL TENDER"

It doesn't mean what you think it means, it won't work (see: El Salvador), it's completely unfair to all of the other technologies out there e.g. Ether etc., and it's inviting the power of the government to regulate it in ways you can never imagine.

And it goes against everything Bitcoin has ever stood for.

It did happen in the Central African Republic but then the government pulled down that decision so, even if there is a potential for many of the African countries to do it, it's possible that their government will also have to revert their decisions.

Only a few that it has became one but some may possibly think of it to be one. But even without it being a legal tender, the adoption will continue to increase.

Legal tender is a thing to attract newbies because they feel cool and have more belief in Bitcoin when reading news "Bitcoin is legal tender".

When they are in a market for a while, use Bitcoin for a while, they will recognize that they can use Bitcoin any time, any where, without Bitcoin legal tender.

Have a non custodial wallet. Have its private key.
Have the Internet connection.
They are able to broadcast a Bitcoin transaction and simply, after that, wait for a confirmation from Bitcoin miners, to finish that transaction.

I don't think governments will have more or less regulations on Bitcoin because it is Legal tender or not Legal tender. When this market becomes bigger, they will have more regulations because they don't mind about Legal tender status of Bitcoin, they care more about money they can get from citizens, through tax.

They aim at taxing their citizens, taxing your Bitcoin investment, trading.

Legal has two meanings, one of which is permitted to be used as an investment asset and the other is prohibited as a legal transaction tool. Some countries allow bitcoin only as an investment asset, as in my country which is regulated in such a way, but we are not allowed to use bitcoin as a legal transaction tool. If you answer the question why Bitcoin is not allowed to be a legal transaction tool, perhaps countries have different views even though their nature is almost the same. But what we hope is that Bitcoin can be accepted even if it is only an investment asset so that we don't need to hide it.

Some other countries are much stricter and they don't allow both bitcoins so when people do both it will be a violation and there will be fatal consequences such as being arrested or jailed. This kind of country actually has a much more extreme view of bitcoin and we should be much more grateful because bitcoin is allowed as an investment asset in our country.

Bitcoin becoming a legal tender doesn't mean that it's being forced down the throats of any citizen. However, lets assume that it is, like in a scenario where legal tender means that it's being forced to people, well the logic still stands correct, he said "it would increase adoptability" and to be fair, if the government forces everyone to use it, then how is that not adoption rate going up? That is why, if you are right and it's forced then it's still going up, if you are wrong and it's just an option to have, it still goes up.

As long as the legal tender situation happens, in more and more countries, then we have to realize that it's not going to end up being all that complicated for anyone, it's the normal life cycle to be fair.

Great, so you want to use the power of the central government to force people to buy into the same investment you've bought into, thereby making the value of your investment going up. Nice guy :).

So if Bitcoin should be forced upon citizens, why not Ether? Why not DOGE? Why not Haypenny currencies?

And while we're at it, I'm very bullish on a stock right now (MRVL). Should I advocate the US government make that stock "legal tender" so everybody will have to buy it, and make it go through the roof?

Why should Bitcoin, of all things, be given this special treatment by the government?

Nobody or government is given special treatment  to Bitcoin, people only care about there investment which isn't your business about the way they recognise it. Bitcoin is an asset, so no one cares about your other asset, or stock and no one really cares if you advocate or not.

I don't understand the fact that you seem to misunderstand what the topic is about or didn't read the thread to assimilate.  Everyone is entitled to there opinion. Here is a Bitcoin Forum people share ideas about Bitcoin mainly, you haven't shared any reasonable thread on what you mean or the necessity of your point.

Whether Bitcoin becomes legal tender or not, we know the prospecting future of bitcoin though nothing is created or predictable in the financial market. You invest based on your decision, what suites you.
The Government you talk about can give Bitcoin special treatment because it a valuable asset worth investing. The rest you called are shitcoins and  asset, that ain't gotten the interest of investors the way Bitcoin does, that why Bitcoin is the subject of discussion.

It looks dumb to me as you  compare shitcoins to Bitcoin.

So every other cryptocurrency or digital currency in the world--and every other form of investment known to man--is a "shitcoin"? Is that what you think?

And you really think the government should be in the business of deciding which assets are "valuable" and which are "shitcoins"?

Nice one Mate.

What is a shitcoin?
A shitcoin simply Alternative Coin (Altcoin), is any cryptocurrency other than Bitcoin that has less value or purpose. Meaning any coin that isn't Bitcoin is a shitcoin.
Nobody is talking about investment mate, Investment is simply a proces we take to put (risk) our capital on an asset in order to have profit over a stipulated period of time.

Government decides nothing, investment decisions is a sole decision of any individual.

Wow. Okay. That's... an opinion... :)

So by that logic, it sounds like you'd vote to make Ether, Monera, and thousands of other digital currencies, illegal?


But by asking for a special law written to prop up your favorite investment, you are asking the government to decide everything. Your opinion is that every investment that is not Bitcoin is, "shit" (I guess).

It's fine to have that opinion, but it's quite another thing to ask for the government to enforce your investment opinion into law such that your opinion gets special rewards from the government to the detriment of other people's opinions.

When you involve the government in investments, you are taking decision making away from individuals.

I also think that Bitcoin don't have to be a legal tender of any country to achieve it's global currency aim, if it's accepted in any country as a payment option and it's business people will adopt it and accept it as a means of payment, then it'll still mentain it's function as a legally accepted payment method. I don't think that most governments will accept Bitcoin as a legal tender because they can't control it as a result of it being decentralized, the least they can do is regulate it. Bitcoin don't have to takeover fiat currencies, it can function perfectly well as an alternative digital currency, besides people are adopting it more as as an investment asset, because it's a store of value.

I never understood why a lot of people are trying to push the idea that BTC will replace fiat. It won't, and it doesn't need to. Perhaps it needs more adoption, but it truly a great alternative, it doesn't have to be the only available option.

Maybe because decentralization will came in future and they think bitcoin will be the best option if that happen, but they forget to realize that government will create or launch their own digital currency so its still useless for overthinking that this might happen since government still all have the final say regarding on what trajectory they are going to adopt. Also its good that fiat and Bitcoin will exist together since all of us would have option to choose whether what currency we would like to use on certain aspects especially on other scenario that bitcoin could be useful also same with fiat. I don't want in future that government will think different on bitcoin and think about it as illegal currency since for this reasons maybe a restriction will happen and they would not let their people use bitcoin that's why we should careful on what we wish for since government is the most strongest entity that can implement all of this.

Bitcoin have been popular as commodity assets for investing and trading, its difficult to make bitcoin acceptable for legal tender payment transaction because all countries have regulation by using fiat for transaction. Indeed bitcoin become more decentralized and has transparent when using for transaction, but can't control when bitcoin price dropping how many people get loss when accepting bitcoin as payment way without convert it as soon possible.
Actually bitcoin acceptable for legal tender payment transaction has advantage and disadvantage side, bitcoin increasing values could increasing profitable if accepted as payment transaction but in other side many time bitcoin transaction got congested and take more longer time payment completed.

Bitcoin and Fait will keep existing together.  As the two will still be means of transactions, fait is currency which supercedes any other, which the Government can control, Bitcoin is entirely different and free from there control, so the government will only care about fait which they have control over and also control its supply.

It will be difficult for this time for Bitcoin to be legalize to other nations because government is fighting for Bitcoin and for bitcoin to be a legal tender in any country it will be difficult for now unless Bitcoin existence have reached 20 years many people and their government is still against the development of Bitcoin and the existence of Bitcoin cause the things Bitcoin has one of the simplest way of committing a money laundering across another nation that is why many government or many nations is against the development of Bitcoin so from my own understanding of Bitcoin and the government and they also two legalize a bitcoin as a legal tender it is something that will happen in future time when people have understand fully the importance of Bitcoin

This is what is making some countries to be afraid, not to make BTC legal tender in their land because it will make their fiat money lose value, and BTC carry value that is making people to use it for payments than fiat money.

Despite BTC is not legal tender in my country, many people prefer to use BTC these days to buy international equipments by using BTC, even though they have fiat money in their account, and if our government make it legal tender many people will be happy in the country but our government will never allow such thing in the country.

 The reason why many countries will not allow BTC to become legal tender global, is because they will not be able to control BTC and it will not add anything into the account of the government like the way fiat money is adding value and profit into the government account.

That's nonsense. Bitcoin doesn't make sovereign currencies drop in price per se, and no serious person believes that.

And if they did, they'd make Bitcoin illegal, which almost all countries do not do.

You seem to think "legal tender" means the same thing as "legal". It doesn't. The law passed in El Salvador has been a boondoggle and didn't do anything to increase retail adoption there. It was just a pump-and-dump scheme for the country's elites.

He is not wrong completely, if the government want to used Bitcoin to make a beat, we the holders will dance to it because their conclusions is what gives some people confidence to invest. Look at this way, you think that if the government doesn't want to see Bitcoin around and tackle it, you think the institutional investors will come closers or you think the ETF that were approves will be here today. The government has never been friendly about Bitcoin from beginning else the likes of Blackrock that are here today would have bought Bitcoin when it was cheaper back then, the government lack of transparency made them not to do buy back to then.

About shitcoins, we can both agree that plenty of altcoins that result to shitty has done more harm than good compare to what Bitcoin has done. Bitcoin don't just crash unless something terrible must have happened and the last I checked most of the Bitcoin down fall were as a result of altcoins negligence, 2018 bull run crash was a result of ICO scams, 2020 bull run was a result of Terra Luna and FTX collapse and not just Bitcoin collapse on it own.


The government can't but decision on any market can influence such market, if today they don't want any asset to remain on the space of Ethereum blockchain, trust me man they have the resources because it's more centralized but Bitcoin isn't possible but can affect the price movement, that's what government power can do.

Bitcoin is aid decentralized currency in which everybody know very well and before it will become a legal tender I think many people from different countries have to adopt bitcoin massively before can become a legal tender, there's something I know quite well in relative with Bitcoin before government to will approve a bitcoin as a legal tender, the top countries who is control of the nation have to accept Bitcoin as a legal tender, such as USA and Russia even China before other countries can make a bitcoin a legal tender

Wow. Okay. How about I lobby the government to make my current favorite investment, NVDA, have these special privileges instead of Bitcoin? Does that sound fair to you? Why not have the government pump GOLD instead? Or APPL? Or Soybean futures? Or some other stock?

Bitcoin investors begging the government for free handouts so their investment will increase in value--like what you are asking for here--is... quite the evolution from Bitcoin's origins, that's for sure :).

All I have to say is that the old adage about "live by the sword, die by the sword" applies here: if you want to use the power of the government in order to make your investment increase in value, be prepared for that same government to want something in return. People don't vote to make a certain part of the population rich without wanting something back from them--and they often take back twice as much as they gave.

And I must say, after Bitcoin has gone up 500% during the Biden presidency, it's amazing to me that for some people it's still not enough and they want Bitcoin to go up even more and want the government to force people to buy it. This is the textbook definition of greed on display here.