Bitcoin & California

[BenjaminGlover]

Bitcoin enthusiasts in California are attempting to make their state the first to recognize cryptocurrency as legal tender A state legislator in California has introduced legislation that would make bitcoin legal money in the state. The action would be in violation of the US Constitution, which provides that Congress has the exclusive authority to declare what is and isn't legal money. According to the Constitution, however, state officials are responsible for defining "legal tender."

[btc_angela]

Bitcoin enthusiasts in California are attempting to make their state the first to recognize cryptocurrency as legal tender A state legislator in California has introduced legislation that would make bitcoin legal money in the state. The action would be in violation of the US Constitution, which provides that Congress has the exclusive authority to declare what is and isn't legal money. According to the Constitution, however, state officials are responsible for defining "legal tender."

For the record I will put the link of the bill:

https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/ca/20212022/bills/CAB00025753/

Existing law generally prohibits a person from engaging in the business of money transmission without a license from the Commissioner of Business Oversight. Existing law defines money transmission as selling or issuing payment instruments, selling or issuing stored value, and receiving money for transmission. Existing law, the Uniform Commercial Code, among other things, regulates the issuance and transfer of securities and prescribes rules pursuant to which entitlements for securities held by a securities intermediary are to be determined. Existing law prohibits a corporation, social purpose corporation, association, or individual from issuing or putting in circulation, as money, anything but the lawful money of the United States.
This bill would authorize a private or public entity in the state to accept virtual currency, as defined, as a method of payment for the provision of any good or service, including any governmental service. The bill would define public entity for these purposes to include the state and every state entity, including the Legislature, the judicial branch, the University of California, and the California State University, and a political subdivision of the state, including a city, county, city and county, charter city, charter county, school district, community college district, joint powers authority, joint powers agency, and any public agency, authority, board, commission, or district.

So this could really challenge the US constitution, so we will see how far this can go and who is going to win in this battle.

But then again, California is not the first state to introduce this, Arizona did:

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/SB1341P.pdf

[jackg]

So this could really challenge the US constitution, so we will see how far this can go and who is going to win in this battle.

Is there much opposition to something like this happening and allowing businesses and consumers over there to not trade in dollars directly? I don't even think banks would be against it because they could still become a useful intermediary for some people.

[ChiBitCTy]

One thing I’ve kind of been wanting to ask when it comes to making bitcoin legal tender in certain places, why does it really matter, like what difference will it make exactly? Does that mean that every place has to start also accepting bitcoin ? Have always been kind of confused by this.

[Upgrade00]

One thing I’ve kind of been wanting to ask when it comes to making bitcoin legal tender in certain places, why does it really matter, like what difference will it make exactly?

It does not directly help Bitcoin, but it could shape the public opinion around it. Governments turning to Bitcoin announced it as a global asset, meaning more people would want to own it, driving up demand.

Does that mean that every place has to start also accepting bitcoin ?

They do not have to and countries/states which do accept Bitcoin would be doing themselves a favour and eojmd be ahead of the curve in the coming years considering the potential growth of the network.
Bitcoin would be fine without such adoption though.

[logfiles]

Does Bitcoin need to be a legal tender in order to be successful?

Do we need to wait for approval from a centralized body like Government in order to start feeling secure about using a decentralized cryptocurrency whose purpose of creation was to initially get rid of that centralized corruptible middle man (Read government/central banks)?

[lornadane]

Does Bitcoin need to be a legal tender in order to be successful?

Do we need to wait for approval from a centralized body like Government in order to start feeling secure about using a decentralized cryptocurrency whose purpose of creation was to initially get rid of that centralized corruptible middle man (Read government/central banks)?

The difficulty of bitcoin being a legal payment because it sees the government cannot accept bitcoin like other ordinary money and of course it will be against the fiat money of the central bank.
But about security, it doesn't mean that we are still safe in using bitcoin, even we have been using bitcoin for years, it is still trusted by the public and about corruptors, it may be difficult for them to take bitcoin secretly because bitcoin always has security and privacy.

[Poker Player]

One thing I’ve kind of been wanting to ask when it comes to making bitcoin legal tender in certain places, why does it really matter, like what difference will it make exactly? Does that mean that every place has to start also accepting bitcoin ? Have always been kind of confused by this.

It matters a lot.

In the vast majority of countries where it has been regulated so far, Bitcoin has been considered as a financial asset, like a stock, which makes its use as a everyday currency impractical, because people should declare the difference between their acquisition price and the price of bitcoin at the moment they pay for a coffee, shop at the supermarket, etc.

This is a big problem unless a threshold is set below which it does not have to be declared, for example $100.

If instead it is considered legal tender, you do not have to declare anything. This difference is essential.

[so98nn]

Apologies for mentioning this but US costitution is way funny because it can be manipulated as and when required in the favour of Government rules and regulation. It’s not based on or in the benefit of public grievances. So this will always gonna be problem for the US peeps and they should actually call an action against this. Otherwise Bitcoin won’t be able to survive one day if they decided to take it down through illegal tender.

Anyways, this is positive thing they doing and I wish that country like California would have this rendered in the state. California is big hub and it can attract heavy players into crypto economy.

[bittraffic]

Apologies for mentioning this but US costitution is way funny because it can be manipulated as and when required in the favour of Government rules and regulation. It’s not based on or in the benefit of public grievances. So this will always gonna be problem for the US peeps and they should actually call an action against this. Otherwise Bitcoin won’t be able to survive one day if they decided to take it down through illegal tender.

Anyways, this is positive thing they doing and I wish that country like California would have this rendered in the state. California is big hub and it can attract heavy players into crypto economy.

The positive side is that Biden has already executive order on cryptocurrencies, although it's long overdue I think once its finalized crypto will be accepted widely in every state.  There is a need for this EO because of the states like Cali, Maimi, Arizona and etc which had been trying to make thier cities a crypto hub without yet a real regulation.

We noticed prices spikes after the executive order was released. I think there will be no need for states to individually recognize BTC as legal tender.

[Yaunfitda]

Apologies for mentioning this but US costitution is way funny because it can be manipulated as and when required in the favour of Government rules and regulation. It’s not based on or in the benefit of public grievances. So this will always gonna be problem for the US peeps and they should actually call an action against this. Otherwise Bitcoin won’t be able to survive one day if they decided to take it down through illegal tender.

Anyways, this is positive thing they doing and I wish that country like California would have this rendered in the state. California is big hub and it can attract heavy players into crypto economy.

The positive side is that Biden has already executive order on cryptocurrencies, although it's long overdue I think once its finalized crypto will be accepted widely in every state.  There is a need for this EO because of the states like Cali, Maimi, Arizona and etc which had been trying to make thier cities a crypto hub without yet a real regulation.

We noticed prices spikes after the executive order was released. I think there will be no need for states to individually recognize BTC as legal tender.

The EO order of Biden is somewhat very positive for the crypto. Maybe it doesn't translate to the price increase, but I at least it's good that we finally hear the stance of US as far as crypto goes.

For California and other states making it a legal tender, I think it's also a very positive news. At least bitcoin is being viewed as another options now. Unlike before when it was look as very negative and that it is being used by criminals only.

[masterrex]

Bitcoin enthusiasts in California are attempting to make their state the first to recognize cryptocurrency as legal tender A state legislator in California has introduced legislation that would make bitcoin legal money in the state. The action would be in violation of the US Constitution, which provides that Congress has the exclusive authority to declare what is and isn't legal money. According to the Constitution, however, state officials are responsible for defining "legal tender."

I think that's good news for the California Bitcoin users, but as the author said it might violate the US constitution, well that's an interesting development about crypto adoption in the US particularly in California but the big question is how they can implement that proposal if it can violate the US constitution? It looks uncertain to me. so only time can tell if it was implemented or not! 

[pawanjain]

Bitcoin enthusiasts in California are attempting to make their state the first to recognize cryptocurrency as legal tender A state legislator in California has introduced legislation that would make bitcoin legal money in the state. The action would be in violation of the US Constitution, which provides that Congress has the exclusive authority to declare what is and isn't legal money. According to the Constitution, however, state officials are responsible for defining "legal tender."

How come all of a sudden US has become so much interested in bitcoin. Just today I saw few posts on Instagram saying that US is moving towards becoming the global leader of cryptocurrencies.
Using bitcoin as a legal tender would require so many approvals and personally I feel it won't be happening any time soon.

Also, what do you mean by the term Bitcoin enthusiasts ?
Are they the normal public or higher authorities of US government in California ?

[Leviathan.007]

In my own idea, California is where I expect to see bitcoin becoming most used in the whole USA because there are many bitcoin investors in California compared to many other states and California was the first place I used bitcoin atm, however it wasn't a good experience since I wasn't familiar with it, regardless of that, I think bitcoin can be even more used in California but I don't think if this state will announce to know bitcoin as legal currency because, in the end, all states of the USA should obey the same economic rule. and the USA is not a country to accept bitcoin, like El Salvador anytime soon.

[titular]

Does Bitcoin need to be a legal tender in order to be successful?

While it would be tremendous for bitcoin to be accepted world-wide as legal tender, it's success is not reliant on attaining that title.

Bitcoin is a perfect store of value. As long as it maintains the integrity that it has had all of these years, people will continue to look to view it as such. To answer your question, bitcoin will be successful as long as the integrity/durability of the protocol remains.

[Vaskiy]

As Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Fresno, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose comes under California there is good number of bitcoin users. This can be understood by the number of ATMs within California counting to 3627. This shows the people are well aware about the bitcoin and are used to it. Possibly with the people's opinion poll the State might've made plans of making bitcoin legal within the State. However California is supposed to go with the rule of the country, so the State can encourage the using bitcoin and can't make it legal tender.

[KaliLinux]

Does Bitcoin need to be a legal tender in order to be successful?

Do we need to wait for approval from a centralized body like Government in order to start feeling secure about using a decentralized cryptocurrency whose purpose of creation was to initially get rid of that centralized corruptible middle man (Read government/central banks)?

You are absolutely right but the problem remains that, some people are thinking this is the way to verify the global acceptance of Bitcoin. I would say that Bitcoin has been successful even before a country like El Salvador made it a legal tender but the upside would be, with Bitcoin being accepted as a legal tender by most governments the adoption would further push demand which will affect the price +vely.

[CryptoPro909]

Good to hear this!

[OgNasty]

One thing I’ve kind of been wanting to ask when it comes to making bitcoin legal tender in certain places, why does it really matter, like what difference will it make exactly?

It does not directly help Bitcoin, but it could shape the public opinion around it. Governments turning to Bitcoin announced it as a global asset, meaning more people would want to own it, driving up demand.

I don't think it's just that people will want to own it, I think it's that large funds who want to own it are hesitant until the legal cloud has been removed from around Bitcoin.  The question remains though, why does it matter?  I've heard people saying (probably incorrectly) that legal tender is the first step to making Bitcoin gains non-taxable.  I can't imagine that ever being possible, but if so, I'm all for it.  Maybe politicians are starting to worry that people sitting on millions of dollars in tax liabilities might just consider taking a 7 month vacation to Puerto Rico instead of paying a massive tax bill...  With more and more countries starting to offer tax benefits to attract crypto using citizens, they should be concerned...  How much money would it take you in tax savings before a 7 month vacation starts to seem like a great idea?

[DapanasFruit]

Does Bitcoin need to be a legal tender in order to be successful?

Do we need to wait for approval from a centralized body like Government in order to start feeling secure about using a decentralized cryptocurrency whose purpose of creation was to initially get rid of that centralized corruptible middle man (Read government/central banks)?

You are absolutely right but the problem remains that, some people are thinking this is the way to verify the global acceptance of Bitcoin. I would say that Bitcoin has been successful even before a country like El Salvador made it a legal tender but the upside would be, with Bitcoin being accepted as a legal tender by most governments the adoption would further push demand which will affect the price +vely.

Bitcoin is supposed to be independent of the government and away from the control of any form by legal finance but since we are in the open market nothing can stop any individual or firms to get into Bitcoin since they got the resources to do so. However, there is no denying that the coming in of the governments like those in El Salvador and others who are now willing to recognize and even make BTC as a legal tender can have a long-term impact especially on how people can be perceiving Bitcoin because we know that people tend to follow and to use anything that is already popular and endorsed by people and institutions they know can be credible and powerful. This one in California can be interesting to watch since this is not just making BTC as an acceptable mode of payment but really make it a legal tender in the same stature as the dollar...and certainly there can legal concerns on this matter.