Bitcoin legal tender. What if...

[sanga]

FinCen Guidance FIN-2013-G001 (http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html) says:

In contrast to real currency, "virtual" currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.

Three terms to legally define here: virtual currency, legal tender, and jurisdiction.

Let's dream that ONE sovereign state (internationally recognized as a country) makes bitcoin legal tender (perhaps even it's official currency).  Then being legal tender in a jurisdiction, would it no longer fall under their "special" definition, but instead necessarily become "just a currency"?

I bet it would change the game.  Here are my two questions:

Where do you think bitcoin is the most likely (i.e. less unlikely) to become legal tender?
And if we assume it will happens, in which time-frame would you guess it will?

I am asking those question in order to first establish some framework as a starting point, a framework to allow a better understanding of the current international situation and a tool to strengthen the bitcoin institution.

That being said, I would presume that "nowhere in the world" and "never in the history of mankind" are unlikely useful for this purpose, but for "freedom of speech" sake...  you are the master of your keyboard.

[myrkul]

That being said, I would presume that "nowhere in the world" and "never in the history of mankind" are unlikely useful for this purpose, but for "freedom of speech" sake...  you are the master of your keyboard.

Bitcoin would not be improved by being made legal tender anywhere in the world, and nowhere would do it.

[sanga]

That being said, I would presume that "nowhere in the world" and "never in the history of mankind" are unlikely useful for this purpose, but for "freedom of speech" sake...  you are the master of your keyboard.

Bitcoin would not be improved by being made legal tender anywhere in the world, and nowhere would do it.

I don't see how it could "improve bitcoin" either.  What I am talking about is it's status as defined by the law.

"Nowhere would do it" because of [many many reasons.]  However, some reasons do not apply to ALL countries, and therefore some countries have fewer reasons not to do it.

If I may rephrase: what is that universal reason that applies to all country that do and will ever exist, and makes you totally convinced that "nowhere" would do it?

In my eyes, a statement's weight is proportional to what supports it.  What is behind your claim?

[myrkul]

What is that universal reason that applies to all country that do and will ever exist, and makes you totally convinced that "nowhere" would do it?

Countries like to be in control of their currency.

[sanga]

What is that universal reason that applies to all country that do and will ever exist, and makes you totally convinced that "nowhere" would do it?

Countries like to be in control of their currency.

Nice point.  While the government of a country want to be in control of the currency of it's citizens, or the currency altogether, that applies well.

A government that protects its own interest rather than the interest of its people does not want to adopt bitcoin, that is what we see in our world.  The people, however, have their interest inversely proportional.  It is about who will benefit.

There is a difference between a country and it's administration.  Only should the people be responsible enough so that an administration would need act accordingly.

For example, the US constitution is bases on the principle that the government should be as limited as possible, while freedom AND RESPONSIBILITY belongs to the people, e.g. free to act stupidly and get hurt, and responsible of keeping the government limited, among being responsible for their security and everything else in their live (vs other's life)

The United States is now far from that, and the eurozone has a growing "shifting potential", economically speaking.  It is also in my opinion that no instituted government would adopt the currency; only people could.  People who live in a country.

[myrkul]

The United States is now far from that, and the eurozone has a growing "shifting potential", economically speaking.  It is also in my opinion that no instituted government would adopt the currency; only people could.  People who live in a country.

Right. And legal tender is a government edict stating that the currency, when offered as payment for debt, must be accepted. So, nowhere will ever do that.

Now, an accepted currency? That's possible. It might even go so far as to be accepted by a government in payment for fees and taxes. I doubt it, but it might. But unless it is actually made illegal, sooner or later some region is likely to become a place where you can live entirely (or at least, almost entirely) in bitcoin. I'm betting on Nevada or New Hampshire as the first, myself.

[Rassah]

Sealand said they will do that.

[sanga]

Sealand said they will do that.

Okay... you have a source?

[myrkul]

Sealand said they will do that.

Okay... you have a source?

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1cgo6n/iama_im_prince_michael_of_the_principality_of/c9gavep?context=2

[sanga]

According to:
http://www.faketitles.com/html/principality_of_sealand.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/sealand.htm

...it's not recognized at all.

I didn't find that name in any list of sovereign states or countries, nor even on this list of states with limited recognition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition

I also found this one:
http://principality-of-sealand.eu/about/geschichte_e.html
...though the domain name suggests that it may be biased.

[myrkul]

...it's not recognized at all.

Nope, it's not. Not officially.
However:
http://www.sealandgov.org/history

Since Roy was still a British citizen a summons was issued under the fire arms act and on the 25th of November 1968. Roy and Michael were in the dock of the Crown court of Chelmsford assizes in Essex. There was much argument and laws going back to the 17th century were called upon. During his summing up the judge said “This is a swash buckling incident perhaps more akin to the time of “Sir Francis Drake” but it is my judgment is that the UK courts have no jurisdiction.” This was Sealand’s first de facto recognition.

[Peter Lambert]

What is that universal reason that applies to all country that do and will ever exist, and makes you totally convinced that "nowhere" would do it?

Countries like to be in control of their currency.

And yet there are a bunch of countries using the Euro, and another bunch of countries which either us the USD or have pegged their currency to it. I would like to print all the money that I need, but since I have little power, nobody will let me do that.

That being said, I would presume that "nowhere in the world" and "never in the history of mankind" are unlikely useful for this purpose, but for "freedom of speech" sake...  you are the master of your keyboard.

Bitcoin would not be improved by being made legal tender anywhere in the world, and nowhere would do it.

They would not need to be doing it to improve bitcoin, all it would take is for some jurisdiction which has a large population of bitcoin users to add bitcoins as a legal tender option to acquiesce to the convenience of the residents, they would not even have to make it the only legal tender. Legal tender just means you can use it to pay things like taxes and legal judgments.

[Snowfire]

There can usually be only one legal tender currency in a nation. A cryptocurrency cannot truly be instantiated as cash (and no, before you ask, Casascius "coins" are not cash, merely vouchers.) Even in the modern world, this would make things quite awkward--we are not a cashless society yet. For this reason alone, governments are likely to stick with traditional money.