Do you think voting for Bitcoin to become a legal tender was the plan?

[Mrbluntzy]

Did Satoshi want Bitcoin to be strongly associated with crime?

And the ideal of p2p economy breaks down when you remember that middle-size and big businesses are large entities that are easy to prosecute when they do something like receiving an illegal payment method. National economy is not just street vendors who sell hotdogs and lemonade.

Satoshi would not want bitcoin to be associated with crime, he would not also want bitcoin to be centralized. I am afraid that time might come when the technology will become centralized in the aspect of government wanting to monitor how everyone is using the coin to do any business or transaction. What if the government begin to work with Bitcoin miners or they secretly set of their own mining riggs just to make sure they are monitoring what is happening in the Bitcoin blockchain network? Or they decid to be working hand to hand with all the Bitcoin exchange and get to know all information of any one that is using the exchange? It will not make sense if after we make any Bitcoin transaction, some government agency will call us on phone to ask whom we sent the coins to.

[1715010642]

1715010642

[1715010642]

1715010642

[Uruhara]

Well, sometimes I look at the creation, price history and even read the white paper of Bitcoin and I would imagine what Satoshi wanted about Bitcoin and if he feels happy with what is going on now.

I don't think Satoshi would have want Bitcoin to even become a legal tender.  Satoshi said Bitcoin is for the common man and woman to accept in payment on agreement, that's a simple p2p. He never wanted authorities or government to come together in agreement for Bitcoiners to use Bitcoin. He wanted every man to do his thing in a decentralized manner. But I guess that Bitcoin as a legal tender will even make the government to put a very close eye on how every individual is spending their Bitcoin which was not meant to be so.

You can add what you think.

I think Satoshi was just disappointed with the current financial system which is very centralized. And Bitcoin was created to compensate and provide options for people who want to minimize the use of centralized systems. Making bitcoin a legal tender may not be the plan. But making bitcoin acceptable to everyone is clearly the plan. Decentralization is the main goal. Because currently it seems like everything is controlled too much by the government. And the reality is that fiat experiences a decline in value too easily and is too easily affected by inflation. So people need other options to save asset value temporarily. Well, some citizens in one country have done it. When their fiat is affected by inflation. They are flocking to buy bitcoin to protect their assets to avoid high inflation in their country. And yeah it works fine. But once a Bitcoin spot ETF is approved there will be more institutions coming in and more and more of the bitcoin supply will be controlled by them. but the positive is that a larger marketcap will probably make bitcoin volatility less in the future.

[bitterguy28]

Making BTC a legal tender does not make it centralized, because it will not be controlled by the government. And that's a good thing, but they can keep a close eye on every individual and to do that there is no need for them to adopt it as legal tender.

That is the valid argument here , OP seems looking at this to be a government controlled once become a legal tender but its not because they will only allow this to circulate but not to be on their Holding so it will never be centralization .

I am also wishing that one day each government will release statement like what EL Salvador does, though to not force the people to use it but to trust it instead.

We are all rooting for adoption to be made at least of our own government lucky to those who have their government having good treatment to Bitcoin because they are the one that will have the potential of having it legal tender.

[franky1]

Making BTC a legal tender does not make it centralized, because it will not be controlled by the government. And that's a good thing, but they can keep a close eye on every individual and to do that there is no need for them to adopt it as legal tender.

That is the valid argument here , OP seems looking at this to be a government controlled once become a legal tender but its not because they will only allow this to circulate but not to be on their Holding so it will never be centralization .

when bitcoin became defined as legal currency instead of private property. services that buy/sell coin were no longer goods services. but instead money service businesses. and yes government regulation was able to step in by defining it as a currency instead of private property

the peer-to-peer distributed ledger network of coin ownership proof cant be controlled..
BUT the sercives and businesses operating at the gateways to the network that do financial business can be controlled

before bitcoin was legally a currency. it was treated like private property, such as trading cards and antiques private trade