How does a country fully adopt Bitcoin?

[crumbs]

Contract for sale is used in article 2 of the UCC as a superset, encompassing present sale.  
Strictly speaking, you are correct.  If we engage in cat barter, i fail to render the cat due you, and you petition the Court to be made whole, the Court will award you the dollar value of the cat.  
You may safeguard against such trickery by further narrowing the terms of the contract by specifying the accepted payment method to be *exclusively cats,* thus making article 2 of the UCC inapplicable due to exception clause § 2-102.

If the person selling the cat fails to deliver, the court will order them to supply the cat if at all possible, and the dollar value of the cat only if the cat itself cannot be supplied.  But that is backwards, because we aren't talking about cats becoming money, we are talking about BTC.  Since BTC is being used as money in this transaction, the court will not insist that BTC actually be delivered.

You've chosen to introduce a new term, "money," without defining it.  You obviously do not mean "legal tender," as you clearly state below.  This breaks the conventional understanding of the term, so what, may i ask, do you mean?  
Will this money be one of the many moneys?  
Will this money be fungible?  
With other monies, e.g. dollar?  
Could it extinguish all debts, public & private?  
Will a calico tabby be an instance of this money?  
Will my IOU?

A particularly lulzy consequence of bitcoin being made legal tender on par with the dollar:  
Legal tender is, by definition, fungible, thus the counterparty *always keeps the option to compensate you in dollars, rather than bitcoins.*  As we all know, the FED prints as many dollars as it darn pleases.  You propose to devalue bitcoin by putting it on par with that paper trash.  Are you a FED infiltrator?

Where on earth did you get the notion of granting legal tender status to bitcoin?  And why would it be at par value?  I talk about removing legal tender status from federal reserve notes, so that people can insist on getting paid in bitcoins, or whatever else they want.

Remove the notion of legal tender altogether?  Why would a state wish to devalue its currency by openly stating that its currency is no better than Monopoly money?  Or do you feel the value of the dollar will skyrocket upon such an announcement?   I'm starting to feel i've been trolled.

[NewLiberty]

It would be much simpler than you are all making it.

To fully adopt bitcoin, all a nation would have to do is to start accepting it for payments, along with their own currency.  Giving it the same standing within their law as the the other currency could be done, but that is not even necessary.

[lucasjkr]

What advantage would a country have in buying into bitcoin vs creating their own clone of bitcoin? They can then fix the initial exchange rate, among other things. Not have to go into the open market to buy heir first batch of coins, etc.

[crumbs]

It would be much simpler than you are all making it.

To fully adopt bitcoin, all a nation would have to do is to start accepting it for payments, along with their own currency.  Giving it the same standing within their law as the the other currency could be done, but that is not even necessary.

Current law allows people to accept bitcoin, tree bark or calico cats -- not only dollars -- as payment.  Nothing needs to be changed but the minds of those insisting on being paid in US dollars.  I see no problems.

[kjj]

Contract for sale is used in article 2 of the UCC as a superset, encompassing present sale.  
Strictly speaking, you are correct.  If we engage in cat barter, i fail to render the cat due you, and you petition the Court to be made whole, the Court will award you the dollar value of the cat.  
You may safeguard against such trickery by further narrowing the terms of the contract by specifying the accepted payment method to be *exclusively cats,* thus making article 2 of the UCC inapplicable due to exception clause § 2-102.

If the person selling the cat fails to deliver, the court will order them to supply the cat if at all possible, and the dollar value of the cat only if the cat itself cannot be supplied.  But that is backwards, because we aren't talking about cats becoming money, we are talking about BTC.  Since BTC is being used as money in this transaction, the court will not insist that BTC actually be delivered.

You've chosen to introduce a new term, "money," without defining it.  You obviously do not mean "legal tender," as you clearly state below.  This breaks the conventional understanding of the term, so what, may i ask, do you mean?  
Will this money be one of the many moneys?  
Will this money be fungible?  
With other monies, e.g. dollar?  
Could it extinguish all debts, public & private?  
Will a calico tabby be an instance of this money?  
Will my IOU?

I mean money in the conversational sense.  It isn't necessary to define it tighter for this discussion.  Prior to (or in the absence of) legal tender laws, money was whatever people used as money.  It would be daft to require "money" to mean "legal tender" when discussing the removal of the laws that define and specify legal tender.

A particularly lulzy consequence of bitcoin being made legal tender on par with the dollar:  
Legal tender is, by definition, fungible, thus the counterparty *always keeps the option to compensate you in dollars, rather than bitcoins.*  As we all know, the FED prints as many dollars as it darn pleases.  You propose to devalue bitcoin by putting it on par with that paper trash.  Are you a FED infiltrator?

Where on earth did you get the notion of granting legal tender status to bitcoin?  And why would it be at par value?  I talk about removing legal tender status from federal reserve notes, so that people can insist on getting paid in bitcoins, or whatever else they want.

Remove the notion of legal tender altogether?  Why would a state wish to devalue its currency by openly stating that its currency is no better than Monopoly money?  Or do you feel the value of the dollar will skyrocket upon such an announcement?   I'm starting to feel i've been trolled.

No state would.  Are you aware of which thread you are reading?  It isn't the "which states want to give up their monopoly on free money" thread, it is the "what would need to happen for a state to give up their monopoly on free money if they wanted to, which none of them do" thread.

[crumbs]

Contract for sale is used in article 2 of the UCC as a superset, encompassing present sale.  
Strictly speaking, you are correct.  If we engage in cat barter, i fail to render the cat due you, and you petition the Court to be made whole, the Court will award you the dollar value of the cat.  
You may safeguard against such trickery by further narrowing the terms of the contract by specifying the accepted payment method to be *exclusively cats,* thus making article 2 of the UCC inapplicable due to exception clause § 2-102.

If the person selling the cat fails to deliver, the court will order them to supply the cat if at all possible, and the dollar value of the cat only if the cat itself cannot be supplied.  But that is backwards, because we aren't talking about cats becoming money, we are talking about BTC.  Since BTC is being used as money in this transaction, the court will not insist that BTC actually be delivered.

You've chosen to introduce a new term, "money," without defining it.  You obviously do not mean "legal tender," as you clearly state below.  This breaks the conventional understanding of the term, so what, may i ask, do you mean?  
Will this money be one of the many moneys?  
Will this money be fungible?  
With other monies, e.g. dollar?  
Could it extinguish all debts, public & private?  
Will a calico tabby be an instance of this money?  
Will my IOU?

I mean money in the conversational sense.  It isn't necessary to define it tighter for this discussion.  Prior to (or in the absence of) legal tender laws, money was whatever people used as money.  It would be daft to require "money" to mean "legal tender" when discussing the removal of the laws that define and specify legal tender.

Whenever i say "money," i mean dollars, living in US and all.  All the people i converse with also mean dollars, which happen to be the legal tender of United States of America.  When people from other countries use the term "money" in their conversations, they are referring to the currencies of their nations. You, on the other hand, mean something other than state-issued money.  What "conversational sense" do you mean?

A particularly lulzy consequence of bitcoin being made legal tender on par with the dollar:  
Legal tender is, by definition, fungible, thus the counterparty *always keeps the option to compensate you in dollars, rather than bitcoins.*  As we all know, the FED prints as many dollars as it darn pleases.  You propose to devalue bitcoin by putting it on par with that paper trash.  Are you a FED infiltrator?

Where on earth did you get the notion of granting legal tender status to bitcoin?  And why would it be at par value?  I talk about removing legal tender status from federal reserve notes, so that people can insist on getting paid in bitcoins, or whatever else they want.

Remove the notion of legal tender altogether?  Why would a state wish to devalue its currency by openly stating that its currency is no better than Monopoly money?  Or do you feel the value of the dollar will skyrocket upon such an announcement?   I'm starting to feel i've been trolled.

No state would.  Are you aware of which thread you are reading?  It isn't the "which states want to give up their monopoly on free money" thread, it is the "what would need to happen for a state to give up their monopoly on free money if they wanted to, which none of them do" thread.

This thread is titled How does a country fully adopt Bitcoin?   I'm guessing your thoughts on the matter are "Ain't no way in heck it's a' gonna happen," am i correct?  In that case, we're in perfect rapport

[NewLiberty]

It would be much simpler than you are all making it.

To fully adopt bitcoin, all a nation would have to do is to start accepting it for payments, along with their own currency.  Giving it the same standing within their law as the the other currency could be done, but that is not even necessary.

Current law allows people to accept bitcoin, tree bark or calico cats -- not only dollars -- as payment.  Nothing needs to be changed but the minds of those insisting on being paid in US dollars.  I see no problems.

People are free to accept it.  Currently no government institution does, or at least none of which I am aware.
When one does, that government will begin to accumulate bitcoin, which will in turn bolster and improve it's fiat currency as it will have some crypto currency assets.  Then when BASEL IV or V or IX or however long it takes for bitcoin to be recognized internationally as an asset class hits, they will be ready.

Whether folks would willingly part with their precious bitcoins in a transaction with their government remains to be seen.  I suspect at least some might.
Gresham's law may come into play at that point.

[kjj]

Whenever i say "money," i mean dollars, living in US and all.  All the people i converse with also mean dollars, which happen to be the legal tender of United States of America.  When people from other countries use the term "money" in their conversations, they are referring to the currencies of their nations. You, on the other hand, mean something other than state-issued money.  What "conversational sense" do you mean?

Languages are rarely clean.  The word money has several meanings, among them are "the specific things used as money in a given time and place" and "the concept of abstract tokens of value".

I don't know what sort of conversations you have on a normal basis, but when I say money in a discussion, I usually mean the concept rather than a specific implementation.  And when I do refer to the implementation, I'm typically referring to whatever the appropriate implementation happens to be at the moment, rather than the one specific implementation.

Does that make any sense?  If I ask to borrow money, I may expect that loan to come in the form of little green papers, but it isn't the papers I seek, but the abstract notion of value that we place on them.  In different circumstances, I may expect different tokens, but what I'm always looking for is the value.

[crumbs]

It would be much simpler than you are all making it.

To fully adopt bitcoin, all a nation would have to do is to start accepting it for payments, along with their own currency.  Giving it the same standing within their law as the the other currency could be done, but that is not even necessary.

Current law allows people to accept bitcoin, tree bark or calico cats -- not only dollars -- as payment.  Nothing needs to be changed but the minds of those insisting on being paid in US dollars.  I see no problems.

People are free to accept it.  Currently no government institution does, or at least none of which I am aware.
When one does, that government will begin to accumulate bitcoin, which will in turn bolster and improve it's fiat currency as it will have some crypto currency assets.  Then when BASEL IV or V or IX or however long it takes for bitcoin to be recognized internationally as an asset class hits, they will be ready.

Whether folks would willingly part with their precious bitcoins in a transaction with their government remains to be seen.  I suspect at least some might.
Gresham's law may come into play at that point.

To gauge the number of folks willing to part with their precious bitcoins in transactions with the government, the order books of every exchange where bitcoins are traded for fiat are a good ledger

[crumbs]

Whenever i say "money," i mean dollars, living in US and all.  All the people i converse with also mean dollars, which happen to be the legal tender of United States of America.  When people from other countries use the term "money" in their conversations, they are referring to the currencies of their nations. You, on the other hand, mean something other than state-issued money.  What "conversational sense" do you mean?

Languages are rarely clean.  The word money has several meanings, among them are "the specific things used as money in a given time and place" and "the concept of abstract tokens of value".

Yes, spoken language is imprecise & ambiguous.  I assume that's why you have opted for "conversational sense," which i in turn assume to mean "most immediate & common interpretation."
So, when a mugger tells you "your money or your life," i hope your don't feel that he is inviting you to a lengthy philosophical discussion of abstract concepts -- he wants your cash.  GBPs if the period goes inside the quotes, USD if the other way around.

I don't know what sort of conversations you have on a normal basis, but when I say money in a discussion, I usually mean the concept rather than a specific implementation.  And when I do refer to the implementation, I'm typically referring to whatever the appropriate implementation happens to be at the moment, rather than the one specific implementation.

Who does your shopping?   You may be saddened to learn that what you consider to be conversational meaning of money *doesn't even rank* as far as online dictionaries are concerned.  MW offers us many examples of money, including winners of a race & "[old] money," but none that fit your definition.  Your usage is interesting though far from common or conversational.

Does that make any sense?  If I ask to borrow money, I may expect that loan to come in the form of little green papers, but it isn't the papers I seek, but the abstract notion of value that we place on them.

Whatever it is you seek is likely to be denominated in dollars if you're in US or GBP if you're in England.  This is degenerating into sophistry.

 In different circumstances, I may expect different tokens, but what I'm always looking for is the value.

I hope you don't ask for sirloin steak or a gallon of milk by saying "i'd like some money," though both are instances of value.  As is just about anything you care to name.  Money is not synonymous with value, those are not merely two words describing the same thing.  They are different.  Honest.
If you get a blank stare when you ask a friend to borrow some value, that's why.

[NewLiberty]

You've chosen to introduce a new term, "money," without defining it.  You obviously do not mean "legal tender," as you clearly state below.  This breaks the conventional understanding of the term, so what, may i ask, do you mean?  nouncement?   I'm starting to feel i've been trolled.

This is the saddest post I have seen in a while.
The notion that "Legal Tender" = "money" is one of the greatest tragedies of modern human history.

The Legal Tender law is one of the greatest thefts of freedom and would have Andrew Jackson rolling in his grave if he were aware of his face on paper with that writing on it which spits out of ATM machines all over the USA.

[crumbs]

You've chosen to introduce a new term, "money," without defining it.  You obviously do not mean "legal tender," as you clearly state below.  This breaks the conventional understanding of the term, so what, may i ask, do you mean?  nouncement?   I'm starting to feel i've been trolled.

This is the saddest post I have seen in a while.
The notion that "Legal Tender" = "money" is one of the greatest tragedies of modern human history.

The Legal Tender law is one of the greatest thefts of freedom and would have Andrew Jackson rolling in his grave if he were aware of his face on paper with that writing on it which spits out of ATM machines all over the USA.

Famines, earthquakes, floods, wars, genocides, plagues -- rifle through these for the greatest tragedy of modern history.
I'm afraid "legal tender = money" doesn't even rank. 

[hashman]

A government moving to Bitcoin would need its CB to buy an amount of BTC comparable to their monetary base and set a conversion date. The public would need Bitcoin wallets and tutorials in advance and would then receive BTC in exchange for giving up the old currency.  Tax breaks should be given to encourage people to buy ASICs for mining. Financial systems would need to be re-denominated. A big logistical exercise.

Not necessarily.

A government could grab some BTC and/or claim a certain amount.  They could for example claim that 1 ZMB would get you 0.00001 coin passed to an address you control at any branch.  Hey presto, you now have a currency backed by BTC!

[shawshankinmate37927]

You've chosen to introduce a new term, "money," without defining it.  You obviously do not mean "legal tender," as you clearly state below.  This breaks the conventional understanding of the term, so what, may i ask, do you mean?  nouncement?   I'm starting to feel i've been trolled.

This is the saddest post I have seen in a while.
The notion that "Legal Tender" = "money" is one of the greatest tragedies of modern human history.

The Legal Tender law is one of the greatest thefts of freedom and would have Andrew Jackson rolling in his grave if he were aware of his face on paper with that writing on it which spits out of ATM machines all over the USA.

Famines, earthquakes, floods, wars, genocides, plagues -- rifle through these for the greatest tragedy of modern history.
I'm afraid "legal tender = money" doesn't even rank. 

Okay, so not a tragedy in the same sense as a natural disaster or an act of violence committed by a state, but fiat, debt-based currency is certainly the greatest scam to be perpetrated in modern human history.

[ardana123]

A government will never accept or promote any other currency besides their own. This is why it can only be done by the people themselves. Bitcoin was created by the people, so it should be promoted, used and adopted by the people and only the people. A government shouldn't have any say in this.

[shawshankinmate37927]

A government will never accept or promote any other currency besides their own. This is why it can only be done by the people themselves. Bitcoin was created by the people, so it should be promoted, used and adopted by the people and only the people. A government shouldn't have any say in this.

I completely agree.  In the USA, I like to think that we would never allow Congress to establish an official religion.  In fact, our Constitution expressly forbids it.  The same concept should apply to money/currency.  We should each be free to individually choose what we are willing to accept in exchange for our labor, time, services, etc.  Forcing us to accept their fiat is tantamount to involuntary servitude.

[crumbs]

A government will never accept or promote any other currency besides their own. This is why it can only be done by the people themselves. Bitcoin was created by the people, so it should be promoted, used and adopted by the people and only the people. A government shouldn't have any say in this.

I completely agree.  In the USA, I like to think that we would never allow Congress to establish an official religion.  In fact, our Constitution expressly forbids it.  The same concept should apply to money/currency.  We should each be free to individually choose what we are willing to accept in exchange for our labor, time, services, etc.  Forcing us to accept their fiat is tantamount to involuntary servitude.

You don't have to accept their fiat, as long as you render it.  Buy only enough to pay taxes, like you'd buy any other commodity.  Problem solved.

[Carlton Banks]

In the USA, I like to think that we would never allow Congress to establish an official religion.  In fact, our Constitution expressly forbids it.  The same concept should apply to money/currency.

And I'd add that it's no coincidence that pursuit of money in a fiat system takes on some seriously religious overtones. It's the modern belief system really, hence why so many people find the Bitcoin concept or the nature of the fiat con so difficult to accept, you're basically inviting them to blaspheme against their one true God.

We should each be free to individually choose what we are willing to accept in exchange for our labor, time, services, etc.  Forcing us to accept their fiat is tantamount to involuntary servitude.

It is involuntary servitude, let's not mess around. I know you're one of the good guys, but lets start boiling these sleepy frogs, I think gently slapping them in the face with half of the truth is looks and feels like what it is: a compromise. You can't compromise on honesty, not about something this vital!

[shawshankinmate37927]

A government will never accept or promote any other currency besides their own. This is why it can only be done by the people themselves. Bitcoin was created by the people, so it should be promoted, used and adopted by the people and only the people. A government shouldn't have any say in this.

I completely agree.  In the USA, I like to think that we would never allow Congress to establish an official religion.  In fact, our Constitution expressly forbids it.  The same concept should apply to money/currency.  We should each be free to individually choose what we are willing to accept in exchange for our labor, time, services, etc.  Forcing us to accept their fiat is tantamount to involuntary servitude.

You don't have to accept their fiat, as long as you render it.  Buy only enough to pay taxes, like you'd buy any other commodity.  Problem solved.

It's true that right now we are free to use bitcoins and aren't legally obligated to accept fiat, but will that continue to be the case in the future?  In the past, when an alternative like e-gold or Liberty Reserve began to emerge, they found a way to shut it down.  Fortunately, it won't be that easy with Bitcoin.  In response, I suspect they will resort to more drastic measures in an effort to force us into their debt-based fiat currency.  After all, their survival will depend on it.

[shawshankinmate37927]

We should each be free to individually choose what we are willing to accept in exchange for our labor, time, services, etc.  Forcing us to accept their fiat is tantamount to involuntary servitude.

It is involuntary servitude, let's not mess around. I know you're one of the good guys, but lets start boiling these sleepy frogs, I think gently slapping them in the face with half of the truth is looks and feels like what it is: a compromise. You can't compromise on honesty, not about something this vital!

Well, it's not the same as being locked up in chains, being beaten with a whip, and being bought and sold like a piece of property.

Right now, it's not illegal to transact or save in bitcoins.  We just need to ensure it stays that way.