Is bitcoin a legal tender or not. Why?

[traderethereum]

In some countries, bitcoin has become a legal means of payment and @YOSHIE and @dansus021 have provided a list of countries along with estimates of the next countries that will use bitcoin as a legal means of payment.
But when someone buys goods or services from the internet using bitcoin, bitcoin has become a legal means of payment apart from using Paypay, credit or debit cards and instead crosses borders between countries and can be used worldwide.
You can find a list of countries that have legalized bitcoin below:

Code:

https://101blockchains.com/cryptocurrency-legal-countries-list/
https://b2binpay.com/en/countries-which-allow-cryptocurrency-as-legal-payment-method/
...etc

Maybe there are still other countries that have not been included in that list and I think there will be more countries that will make bitcoin a legal tender in the future.
You and your friends can reach one conclusion, there are already countries that have made bitcoin a legal payment and in the future, more and more countries will follow suit.

[1715255186]

1715255186

[1715255186]

1715255186

[Zoomic]

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.

It is because Op do not actually understand the meaning of legal tender, if they do, this question would not arise. A common search of the dictionary will define "legal tender" as coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt..

So, if the government of your country has made a law that mandates her citizens to compulsorily accept bitcoin, it therefore means that bitcoin is a legal tender in your country. Otherwise, bitcoin isn't a legal tender in your country.
The status of legal tenderness is only ascertainable in country by country bases. If approached as a whole and from the origin of bitcoin, it is not a legal tender and was not created to be.

[Woodie]

Is bitcoin a legal tender or not. Why? 

As much as this was a debate between you & your friend(s), I would say that both yes and no answers were correct as this was a general question without specifics on which jurisdiction this was to be applied to.
By the way, as far as questions pertaining to legal tender go..this has to be directed to a specific country/jurisdiction otherwise bitcoin is an asset without boarders and can be used with or without legal recognition unless it can send you to jail which I would suggest you don't risk your freedom over cyber money  .

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.

You really got your friend cornered with all these valid points but seems he was right in some way just didn't elaborate his point well.

[avikz]

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.

You are right on your argument. It doesn't matter what we think about Bitcoin being a legal tender or not. This status can only be given by the government. We may be using Bitcoin for a long time and we may be using it for buying goods. It won't be considered as a legal tender unless the government certifies it.

So no matter what think, it's in the hands of the government, really. The legal tender means just that.

[Lida93]

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.

It is because Op do not actually understand the meaning of legal tender, if they do, this question would not arise. A common search of the dictionary will define "legal tender" as coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt..

So, if the government of your country has made a law that mandates her citizens to compulsorily accept bitcoin, it therefore means that bitcoin is a legal tender in your country. Otherwise, bitcoin isn't a legal tender in your country.
The status of legal tenderness is only ascertainable in country by country bases. If approached as a whole and from the origin of bitcoin, it is not a legal tender and was not created to be.

@Zoomic the quote below is from my OP, and looking at it in comparison to all you explain about what a legal tender is it seems we're on same page but yet you claim that the OP have no understanding of what a legal tender is.

If your statements were a counter explanation different from what my OP defined a legal tender to be it would have been logical to grasp why you said I have no understanding of what a legal tender status is.  So what exactly are you saying?

Here's a part of a statement of my op post, please do your comparison to that of yours.

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

[Zoomic]

@Zoomic the quote below is from my OP, and looking at it in comparison to all you explain about what a legal tender is it seems we're on same page but yet you claim that the OP have no understanding of what a legal tender is.

If your statements were a counter explanation different from what my OP defined a legal tender to be it would have been logical to grasp why you said I have no understanding of what a legal tender status is.  So what exactly are you saying?

Here's a part of a statement of my op post, please do your comparison to that of yours.

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

With this, it shows that you understand what a legal tender is but the one you had a debate with doesn't understand it. I made such a statement based on the title of your thread. Reading the title appears that you are unsure if bitcoin is a legal tender or not. Maybe you didn't get the perfect title to the thread. But be it as it may, we are on the same page now...cheers.

[Agbe]

Op your question is vast and has no scope, which might have a straight forward answer. You would have narrow it to a country, region or a continent so that, those who can explain will know where to start from, and like this and from the comments I have read so far are all giving the answers from world wide and bitcoin is not a "legal tender" in the whole world. Or you have to restructure your subject to suit the content. From the comment box, users have listed countries in which bitcoin has been used as a legal tender. And the most popular ones are El Salvador and Republic of Central Africa. For bitcoin to be legal tender means the whole world has accepted bitcoin to buy and sell of goods and service which is the main purpose of the creation of bitcoin.