Is bitcoin a legal tender or not. Why?

[Victan22]

The back and forth argument between you and  your friend is an interesting one, however both of you are right in one way or the other.
Bitcoin as we all know is a decentralised digital currency that has monitoriy value.
So in real sense, bitcoin is a legal tender and it's a global currency.

Indeed bitcoin to an extent has  similar value with  gold, silver and diamond but be it as it may can not be considered a  legal tender because the exchange of bitcoin with goods or services rendered from my point of view occurs only on individual level and not at the state level.
Despite the visible appreciation of bitcoin in the globe today no government has yet legalised it as legal tender yet because to everyone of them they believe that it's root and origin is not authentic in a physical sense and as such can diminish some day, so imagine 80% of a country's wealth on bitcoin and it crashes someday which I pray not.

[1715208287]

1715208287

[1715208287]

1715208287

[Chilwell]

So in real sense, bitcoin is a legal tender and it's a global currency.

When you say something is legal, it refers to something that is generally accepted by the government of the country. For example, if you have a dollar note and want to spend it in a rural area near you and they don't know the currency, you will have difficulty because they don't know it, despite the fact that dollar currency is generally accepted globally. The people in the community cannot do anything against you because the money is legitimate. In your statement, bitcoin is not a legal tender. We know bitcoin is recognized globally, but it does not mean it is acceptable as a mode of payment; for it to be legalized, it must be approved by the government.

• By default, bitcoin is not a legal tender and was not created to be a legal tender, because it is not under the control of any cemtral authority

Bitcoin was created to provide us with financial freedom, which implies that we may access our funds without any wait or hassle from the authorities. Our government decided a few months ago to convert part of our money, 200, 500, and 1000, which he accomplished without delay. The government deliberately decided not to work with Bitcoin because it does not add value to the country's economy, all individual transactions are done without passing through the central bank and it was affecting them, governments again noticed that if he decided to remain silent about bitcoin, they would lose control over its citizens. When the government issues an order to change the naira note, residents instantly respond to the decree and begin to reject it. This is merely Bitcoin's power, hence it is not legal tender.

Despite the visible appreciation of bitcoin in the globe today no government has yet legalised it as legal tender

You can't argue no government has legalized it when there is one, which El Salvador is proud of. He has given us hope that Bitcoin is here to stay; if every country tried to emulate El Salvador, it would go a long way, but it will not happen due to personal interests.

[KingsDen]

Let's go this way;

• Legal tender is not about usage but about government acceptability and endorsement
• This means that what is a legal tender in your own country, will definitely not be what is a legal tender in my own country
• By default, bitcoin is not a legal tender and was not created to be a legal tender, because it is not under the control of any cemtral authority
• However, if any country wishes to make bitcoin a legal tender, they are at liberty to do so because the ideology of bitcoin is liberty and/or freedom. Just like what El Salvador did

This is issue is really get controversial with each comments but let me draw an understanding here. So bitcoin being a legal tender is a subjective matter subject to the specific geographical location where it is accepted by the government of that area. And outside such jurisdiction is loses its legal tender designation.
 For instance, it is said to be a legal tender in El Salvador but  ceased to be a legal tender within a country like Ghana because it's not accepted by the country's government yet.  Is that it?

You are great. That is it, and there's nothing controversial about it. You understood my explanation very well. That is exactly how it is, in as much as there is no central government of the whole world, there is no how one country would make a decision that will affect the whole other countries.

Even if United States of America makes bitcoin legal tender today. It does not automatically translate that bitcoin is now a legal tender in every other countries. The only way to make bitcoin illegal tender and indirectly for all the countries is for it to be the the reserve currency of the world and I have seen some people made some argument and assertion about bitcoin tilting towards that end, but I do not have high hopes for it. All I am interested about is that the government should let bitcoin be and also let the fiat be. Whoever wants to use bitcoin should, and whoever wants to use fiat should, that is the essence of Bitcoin.

[zasad@]

Still in the course of learning.
Got into a slight debate with a friend about bitcoin. The whole argument was if bitcoin is a legal tender or not. And he was emphasizing on the premises that bitcoin is a legal tender in the sense that it is used for the exchange of goods and services around the world. And that by the virtue of people using it it's therefore a legal tender.

On the other side I was trying to explain to him that a legal tender is that which is accepted by the government and under the regulation of any central bank and this is not so with bitcoin. Furthermore, that one of the reasons people accept  bitcoin for exchange of goods and services is because the coin it is like a digital gold that has value specially for long term storage and also with equal unit of value anywhere in the world, etc. Using gold or diamond as obvious example of things that has value, I asked him a rhetorical question; that just because these objects has value and could be used as a means of exchange does it make them to be regarded as a legal tender?

To clear the air about the whole argument I considered I should share this in the forum to have a clear stand if bitcoin is a legal tender or not.

Where bitcoin is a means of payment, then a custodial wallet is used for storage, as in El Salvador. If governments make cryptocurrencies legal tender, then control will be similar to banking.
Personally, it’s easier for me to use a bank card and not pay commissions for cryptocurrency transactions.

[Bushdark]

I don't see any reason for a debate when we all knowntha Bitcoin is not globally acceptable for trades because there are countries that put a red flag on it. Till now there are still countries that ban the use of Bitcoin for transaction of any sort so this should ring a bell that it csause for no debate. Maybe in the nearest future, Bitcoin might become a global currency is there is a agreement consensus on the use of Bitcoin for trade. Bitcoin may be legal tender in your own state but there are many countries that still put a red flag on the use if Bitcoin of any kind of transactions.

[Kakmakr]

I see Bitcoin more as a barter token at the moment, in most countries where the government has not accepted Bitcoin as "Legal Tender" A citizen can "trade" goods and services in his community for anything, without breaking the rules of the country... (Example : I can trade you 4 eggs for a bundle of wood.)

The moment when I open a business and I enter the formal market and I advertise that I "only" accept Bitcoin as a payment option, then it becomes a problem in the eyes of the government that did not accept Bitcoin as a "legal tender". 

The government protect their monopoly over the "printing of currencies" with guns and intimidation. 

[zasad@]

I see Bitcoin more as a barter token at the moment, in most countries where the government has not accepted Bitcoin as "Legal Tender" A citizen can "trade" goods and services in his community for anything, without breaking the rules of the country... (Example : I can trade you 4 eggs for a bundle of wood.)

The moment when I open a business and I enter the formal market and I advertise that I "only" accept Bitcoin as a payment option, then it becomes a problem in the eyes of the government that did not accept Bitcoin as a "legal tender". 

The government protect their monopoly over the "printing of currencies" with guns and intimidation. 

USDT is much better quoted than bitcoin in many countries. This is an interesting fact, but USDC, DAI and other stabelcoins have a lower exchange rate. So when going to another country, it's better to take care of USDT in the Ether or TRON ecosystem, because they are the most popular. In other ecosystems the exchange rate will be less.

[YOSHIE]

To clear the air about the whole argument I considered I should share this in the forum to have a clear stand if bitcoin is a legal tender or not.

Your question is general, broadly speaking Bitcoin has different laws in each country, illegal or legal.

To overcome the argument of your doubts, Bitcoin as a legal currency or not, you can see it here.

Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory.

The legal status of cryptocurrencies varies substantially from one jurisdiction to another, and is still undefined or changing in many of them.[1] Whereas, in the majority of countries the usage of cryptocurrency isn't in itself illegal, its status and usability as a means of payment (or a commodity) varies, with differing regulatory implications.[2]

While some states have explicitly allowed its use and trade, others have banned or restricted it. Likewise, various government agencies, departments, and courts have classified cryptocurrencies differently.

Hopefully, all the quotes / sources above, can overcome the confusion there is about the law that applies to Bitcoin.

[promisedtech]

topic " bitcoin is a legal tender" can only be solved by the governing system and authorities of a state , they determined whether it's should be legally tendered or vice-versa

[yhiaali3]

Anything outside of government control is not considered legal tender. If Bitcoin does not come under state control, governments will not accept it as legal tender.

The most important feature of Bitcoin is decentralization, and this is completely inconsistent with governments that want to centralize and control everything. Here lies the problem that is difficult to solve. How do governments accept Bitcoin while remaining decentralized?

As for gold and diamonds, it is true that it has a value in itself, but I believe that people or governments are the ones who gave it this value, meaning that if we assume, for example, that in a country the government refuses to accept gold, then it will have no value in that country.

[Who is John Galt?]

If Bitcoin does not come under state control, governments will not accept it as legal tender.

Are you fundamentally ignoring the example of El Salvador? If so, then why not recall the example of the Central African Republic, where bitcoin was first recognized as a legal tender, and then a year later it was canceled? It would help in your rhetoric. However, until El Salvador reverses its decision, his example demonstrates that it is quite possible for states to operate with something that they do not fully control. Moreover, the other currency of El Salvador is the American dollar, and it is also not controlled by El Salvador, it is controlled by a completely different state. However, El Salvador copes with it. And El Salvador is not the only state that does the same.

[yhiaali3]

Are you fundamentally ignoring the example of El Salvador? If so, then why not recall the example of the Central African Republic, where bitcoin was first recognized as a legal tender, and then a year later it was canceled? It would help in your rhetoric. However, until El Salvador reverses its decision, his example demonstrates that it is quite possible for states to operate with something that they do not fully control. Moreover, the other currency of El Salvador is the American dollar, and it is also not controlled by El Salvador, it is controlled by a completely different state. However, El Salvador copes with it. And El Salvador is not the only state that does the same.

I do not ignore the experience of El Salvador, but this experience is still in its infancy and there are many problems that it faces and cannot be judged definitively.

On the other hand, it is true that El Salvador does not control Bitcoin, but it controls the main wallet, Chifu, which was created by the Salvadoran government. Also, El Salvador can control all third-party services that operate Bitcoin through KYC, AML laws.

I think the main reason why El Salvador accepted Bitcoin as its main currency is that it does not have its own fiat, but rather used the dollar. It is more likely that if El Salvador had its own fiat, it might not accept Bitcoin as an official currency.

In any case, I encourage the experience of El Salvador, and I hope that it will succeed. I also hope that governments will accept Bitcoin as a legal tender.

[Poker Player]

My goodness, this looks more like a Bitcoin Discussion thread, where more banal discussions take place, than a Legal thread,  Bitcoin is legal tender where it has been declared legal tender by a law. Period. Not because of the considerations your friend may make for how it is used.

[Bushdark]

If Bitcoin does not come under state control, governments will not accept it as legal tender.

Are you fundamentally ignoring the example of El Salvador? If so, then why not recall the example of the Central African Republic, where bitcoin was first recognized as a legal tender, and then a year later it was canceled? It would help in your rhetoric. However, until El Salvador reverses its decision, his example demonstrates that it is quite possible for states to operate with something that they do not fully control. Moreover, the other currency of El Salvador is the American dollar, and it is also not controlled by El Salvador, it is controlled by a completely different state. However, El Salvador copes with it. And El Salvador is not the only state that does the same.

Have I have noticed is that the government want to have full control of cryptocurrency that is why many countries have not still yet accepted cryptocurrency as a legal tender. If this was easy for the government, cryptocurrency will be accepted generally by the government with strict control.

 I know things are getting close gradually and there might be a time when the government will want to come in by full force to make regulations for crypto assets. Since all crypto assets cannot stand alone on there own without the government coming in to either accept it or not. I just hope that time will not come now as soon as possible.

[dansus021]

yes bitcoin is a legal tender in some country maybe other will follow you can actually see in the coinmarketcap sites - https://coinmarketcap.com/legal-tender-countries/


Maybe the next country who accept bitcoin as legal tender would be venezuela in my guess



tho one is sure there is lot of government that look into crypto today

[usekevin]

Let me know your country to say it's the legal or illegal one.Because the bitcoin is legal in some country and illegal in some country.So it's essential one to check,whether it's legal or illegal before investing your money in the bitcoin.The bitcoin legalized country use of the bitcoin and USDT as their mode of the payment.Because most of the payment system will charge certain amount as the fee for the transaction.In China,many of the people using other way to buy the cryptocurrency using some middle man.If the cryptocurrency was the legal one in the China,surely they buy more cryptocurrency and help for the growth of cryptocurrency development.

[Who is John Galt?]

yes bitcoin is a legal tender in some country maybe other will follow you can actually see in the coinmarketcap sites

The Central African Republic canceled the acceptance of bitcoin as a legal tender back in the spring. So at the moment, only El Salvador remains the only country where bitcoin has such a status.

[Zoomic]

Anything outside of government control is not considered legal tender. If Bitcoin does not come under state control, governments will not accept it as legal tender.

The most important feature of Bitcoin is decentralization, and this is completely inconsistent with governments that want to centralize and control everything. Here lies the problem that is difficult to solve. How do governments accept Bitcoin while remaining decentralized?

As for gold and diamonds, it is true that it has a value in itself, but I believe that people or governments are the ones who gave it this value, meaning that if we assume, for example, that in a country the government refuses to accept gold, then it will have no value in that country.

You made some emphatic statements and anyone who read carefully will understand. We all know that the nature of the government is to control, monitor, regulate and centralize. So, there will never be a perfect marriage between a highly centralized government and totally decentralized coin like bitcoin. Both are moving completely in opposite directions.

So, even if some countries have decided to make bitcoin a legal tender, but by default, bitcoin was not designed to be a legal tender and neither was it designed to fight the fiat.

[Gozie51]

To clear the air about the whole argument I considered I should share this in the forum to have a clear stand if bitcoin is a legal tender or not.

The debate about the legality of bitcoin is jurisdiction based. That is it depends on the country that you are pointing to or referring to. So it can not be generalized.

For example you can say bitcoin is a legal tender in El Salvador because it is the country known so far to all that has declared it and backed it by their law as legal tender, that means it use can not be rejected by someone in El Salvador for not being a legal tender. But we can't say because it is legal tender in El Salvador therefore it is a legal tender some where else when they have not made it a law as legal tender.

[Aisha_jay]

Your friend's perspective is valid; Bitcoin is widely used for goods and services. However, traditional legal tenders are regulated by governments and central banks, which Bitcoin isn't. It's more akin to a valuable commodity like gold, not a legal tender. The debate highlights Bitcoin's unique position at the intersection of currency and commodity.