Please stop asking for "legal tender status"

[tabas]

It's true that Bitcoin is legal mostly in majority of the countries in the world but the trust that's being said and classified as a legal tender is what people think that the non coiners will make them use and invest on it. And we've seen this in some countries that have their own legal tender but due to inflation, many of their citizens prefer another currency like in Venezuela, they have their own bolivares but many citizens prefer to pay in USD. And just as with country that have adopted bitcoin as a legal tender, they have a choice aside from own local currency.

Something being legal for payment is not the same thing as "legal tender".

But yes, forcing citizens to accept a currency (which is what legal tender does) will certainly promote it. Why should Bitcoin get this privilege and not say all of the other forms of payment like other cryptos and Haypenny currencies?

This sounds like the government playing favorites to me, which is unfair (and also very unwise).

You're right, once Bitcoin has been said as a legal tender and already made into law then all citizens are forced to adopt it. But what's good with most of the governments that don't have any stance against making it a legal tender or using it as a payment is that they don't ban it. IMHO, that's a better thing to accept than seeing them banning Bitcoin but even with that, we're seeing citizens that still use Bitcoin whether as a payment choice or an investment/asset. So, regardless of what is the government stands for with Bitcoin, as long as they won't ban it. Then, that's the favor that they can do to us and of course, to Bitcoin.

[uneng]

Understand that "legal tender" does not mean "legal". Bitcoin is already perfectly legal in most countries: you can own it and you can trade it if you want to.

The best status for Bitcoin was unregulated, in the early days after its creation and launchment. After regulations started being applied to BTC and crypto market in general, the decline has begun. The less governments get involved with Bitcoin, the better it's going to be for adopters. Legal tender is a double edge sword. If you live under a fair and honest regime (what I really doubt in most countries), it won't difficult adopting Bitcoin, or making it heavily expensive to deal with due to taxes, but if you live under an abusive state, then you will surely miss those old good times when Bitcoin was unregulated.

About legal tender giving power to a government to enforce its usage I think it's possible, but not every governments will act like this. We have El Salvador's example. If the government wished, they could have forced everyone to only deal with BTC from the moment it has become legal tender on, however, it wasn't strategically and financially interesting for them, as the country would be under heavy unstability, so dollar remained as regular currency, and Bitcoin as a public investment asset and secondary currency.

[Darker45]

4. Out of those "lot of ways" that a government can regulate Bitcoin, you can actually give us 3.

Okay, fine. Off the top of my head:

1. A government could create a network of citizen spies wherein they give any citizen ten thousand dollars if they give information about any fellow citizen using Bitcoin, wherein the fellow citizen would be arrested and imprisoned for 20 years.

2. A government could setup a network of honeypot agents all over the Internet in order to catch its citizens using Bitcoin illegally, wherein if they are caught doing so they are imprisoned for 20 years.

3. A government could monitor Internet traffic transpiring within its borders and detect connections to Bitcoin servers.

Governments have guns and prisons on their side. You really can't win.

Aside from guns and prisons, you may actually specify that there's also torture, arbitrary arrest, even murder and whatnot. These tools have been at the government's disposal for centuries. Have they minimized crimes though let alone stop it? If these tools aren't effective at stopping people from doing even illegal and useless things, would they stop them from fighting for their precious rights and privacy and freedom?

Anyway, none of what you mentioned actually regulates Bitcoin. It may regulate its use to a certain degree, but not Bitcoin itself. That's beyond the reach of any government.

[legiteum]

Anyway, none of what you mentioned actually regulates Bitcoin. It may regulate its use to a certain degree, but not Bitcoin itself. That's beyond the reach of any government.

Well I guess if you get reductive about it, then no thing in the world is regulated, only people who use those things are. You can't regulate dollar bills, either, only the people who carry them. You can't regulate illicit drugs, only those who traffic them. And so forth. I'm not sure how useful this analysis is  .

The bottom line is that a government can stop its citizens from holding and trading Bitcoin if it wanted to, and it could dictate the way people use it if it wanted to.

[Darker45]

Anyway, none of what you mentioned actually regulates Bitcoin. It may regulate its use to a certain degree, but not Bitcoin itself. That's beyond the reach of any government.

Well I guess if you get reductive about it, then no thing in the world is regulated, only people who use those things are. You can't regulate dollar bills, either, only the people who carry them. You can't regulate illicit drugs, only those who traffic them. And so forth. I'm not sure how useful this analysis is  .

How can the government not regulate dollar bills when it's fully under their control? They can stop its release. They can print truckloads more of it. They can color it pink. They can change the person printed on it to Justine Bieber kissing Snoop Dog. They can convert them from paper to polymer. They can reduce its size to like that of a card or increase it to A4. They can declare it not a legal tender anymore. They can convert it to digital. They can do whatever with it.

And Bitcoin? The most they can do is call it a criminal money, pedophile or drug lord's currency.

The bottom line is that a government can stop its citizens from holding and trading Bitcoin if it wanted to, and it could dictate the way people use it if it wanted to.

Can they?

[legiteum]

How can the government not regulate dollar bills when it's fully under their control? They can stop its release. They can print truckloads more of it. They can color it pink. They can change the person printed on it to Justine Bieber kissing Snoop Dog. They can convert them from paper to polymer. They can reduce its size to like that of a card or increase it to A4. They can declare it not a legal tender anymore. They can convert it to digital. They can do whatever with it.

And Bitcoin? The most they can do is call it a criminal money, pedophile or drug lord's currency.

I guess I don't want to argue semantics. The bottom line is that a government can control the use of Bitcoin if they want to.

The bottom line is that a government can stop its citizens from holding and trading Bitcoin if it wanted to, and it could dictate the way people use it if it wanted to.

Can they?

In all of the ways I and others mentioned in previous posts--and a lot more ways we haven't thought of, yes, yes they can.

If you live in the US or a relatively free country like it, you shouldn't take that for granted. All I'm saying...

[franky1]

in march 2013
when the US treasury wrote legislation that bitcoin was recognised as currency(but not legal tender status), this allowed the FINcen/FATF(financial action task force) to gain traction writing conditions of use of bitcoin on businesses that accept bitcoin, whereby they needing register as money service businesses to KYC their customers under regulations such as the BSA(bank secrecy act).. this started the ability to then write more regulations over the years

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) is issuing this interpretive guidance to clarify the applicability of the regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.1
Such persons are referred to in this guidance as “users,” “administrators,” and “exchangers,” all as defined below.2 A user of virtual currency is not an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations and therefore is not subject to MSB registration, reporting, and recordkeeping regulations. However, an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations, specifically, a money transmitter, unless a limitation to or exemption from the
definition applies to the person

in march 2014
when the IRS recognised bitcoin as property currency(asset) (a subclass of "currency" thats not legal tender) this then made bitcoin treated as currency but not legal tender. so employees receiving wages in bitcoin need to declare it for income tax (much like americans have to declare foreign income not treated as legal tender in the US)

In some environments, virtual currency operates like “real” currency -- i.e., the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender, circulates, and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance — but it does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.
..
The notice provides that virtual currency is treated as property for U.S. federal tax purposes.  General tax principles that apply to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency.  Among other things, this means that:

    Wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by an employer on a Form W-2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding and payroll taxes.
    Payments using virtual currency made to independent contractors and other service providers are taxable and self-employment tax rules generally apply.  Normally, payers must issue Form 1099.
    The character of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of virtual currency depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer.
    A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property.

in 2015 when the US CFTC recognise bitcoin as a commodity currency(another subcategory of "currency" thats not legal tender)
they stating that to be a commodity exchanger bitcoin futures businesses who wanted to futures/derivatives trade needed to register first as commodity exchanges..

Virtual Currencies Such as Bitcoin are Commodities Section 1a(9) of the Act defines "commodity" to include, among other things, "all services, rights, and interests in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in." 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9). The definition of a "commodity" is broad. See, e.g., Board ofTrade ofCity ofChicago v. SEC, 677 F. 2d 1137, 1142 (7th Cir. 1982). Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are encompassed in the definition and properly defined as commodities.

i could go on..
point being. when being recognised as forms of currency of different levels, new regulations and conditions apply

because of the 2013 recognition as currency. this then activated the BSA jurisdiction. which then conditioned usage.. whereby by recognising it as a currency instead of just property(like pokemon cards, cars, art) bitcoin using businesses could not then swap openly. they could not offer ETF/(spot or futures) unless later regulations then allowed that functionality.

its also worth noting that due to 2015 classification as commodity allowed futures ETF. but not spot
its also worth noting that due to 2024 classification as security allowed spot ETF

its also worth noting due to commodity classification it allowed other agencies to get involved like the EPA and EIA(environmental protection and energy information agencies) wanting to survey bitcoin miners about who they are, where they are and what miners they have, how many, how its powered, who powers it, etc

[legiteum]

[...]
i could go on..
point being. when being recognised as forms of currency of different levels, new regulations and conditions apply
[...]

I agree with all of that. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with making Bitcoin the second legal tender currency in the USA though.

[franky1]

[...]
i could go on..
point being. when being recognised as forms of currency of different levels, new regulations and conditions apply
[...]

I agree with all of that. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with making Bitcoin the second legal tender currency in the USA though.

legal tender status is yet another category to all those listed in my previous
which incorporates even more legislation/regulation

however, as a separate debate
your incessant rants about "force" are exaggerated and can be proven exaggerated should you dare go on a flight with airmiles or buy products using loyalty points. you are not forced to use legal tender and only legal tender, else that would mean bitcoin would not have been open and "not illegal" in 2009-2013
if people were forced to use only legal tender, then any other non legal tender would have been banned and illegal by default
there is no legislation that bans anything not recognised as legal tender.

banks/courts/IRS prefer legal tender and account/audit in legal tender and request/measure peoples income and gains in such. however even they can seize PROPERTY to settle debts, should you not have the legal tender they request

the whole "pro" talk of make bitcoin legal tender is about allowing banks to directly custodianise bitcoin and offer deposit/withdrawal accounts in bitcoin. allow court fines to be measured in bitcoin and allow taxes to be directly paid in bitcoin.. (i see no benefit/pro, as its just way for institutions to take bitcoin more easily and own it)
the "con" of making bitcoin legal tender is more legislation, regulation and rules about who how when and where people can use it
EG only able to withdraw X from atm. only allowed to transact Y before KYC even at citizen level. as well as deeper rules about miners and transaction format features

[legiteum]

however, as a separate debate
your incessant rants about "force" are exaggerated and can be proven exaggerated should you dare go on a flight with airmiles or buy products using loyalty points.

I've said many, many times here that there is no law (in the US at least) that stops anybody from taking any form of payment they want, including air miles--and legal tender has nothing to do with that. I don't know how more times I will need to say this, but I guess I'll keep going until it's no longer necessary.

Legal tender status forces the payee to accept the form of payment whether they want to or not.

It would be like an airline that does not want to accept air miles, but you passed a law in Congress forcing them to do so anyhow.

And yes, a court judgement can list things other than legal tender currency, and they often do. The legal tender law says, "all debts, public and private". That does not preclude other things from being used to fulfill the debt as long as the payee agrees. If you smash my car, I can say, "give me a new car now", and you can do that to settle our dispute--but thanks to legal tender laws, you can also provide just compensation in US dollars.

And if you thinking, "gee, legal tender hardly ever comes up as a legal issue" then you'd be right--and that's the whole point of this thread: not only is begging Bitcoin to be given special status by the government immoral, impractical and against the philosophy of Bitcoin, it's actually almost... meaningless in practical reality...

[retreat]

Bitcoin becoming legal tender only happened in El Salvador and the Central African Republic, apart from that other countries only consider that Bitcoin can be used as a trading and investment instrument by their citizens. Being legal tender means that Bitcoin can be used as a means of payment for goods or services in that country, whereas in countries that only consider Bitcoin as a trading instrument you cannot use Bitcoin to buy goods or pay for services and violating this will result in penalties. So there is a real difference when Bitcoin's status becomes legal tender and when Bitcoin is only a trading instrument in a country.

That is simply not true. Bitcoin is already perfectly legal to be used as a means of payment of goods or services in most countries across the world.

-snip-

"Legal tender is typically issued and regulated by the central bank or monetary authority of a country. It ensures the stability and integrity of the monetary system by providing a standardized form of currency that is universally accepted within the jurisdiction. The acceptance of legal tender is enforced by law, making it obligatory for creditors to accept it as a means of payment." ^(source) Do you understand now what is meant by legal tender status? When a currency has entered the legal stage, it means that it is accepted by the government as a legal currency for transactions and debt payments.
If today you pay Bitcoin in the US or in another country, that's fine, because there are no regulations prohibiting it. Something is prohibited when there is a law that regulates it. But that doesn't make Bitcoin legal tender just because you can pay Bitcoin for various transactions in the US.

[franky1]

however, as a separate debate
your incessant rants about "force" are exaggerated and can be proven exaggerated should you dare go on a flight with airmiles or buy products using loyalty points.

I've said many, many times here that there is no law (in the US at least) that stops anybody from taking any form of payment they want, including air miles--and legal tender has nothing to do with that. I don't know how more times I will need to say this, but I guess I'll keep going until it's no longer necessary.

Legal tender status forces the payee to accept the form of payment whether they want to or not.

you have just contradicted and debunked yourself.

if you do not have dollars, the IRS, courts can seize your property to settle debts(bye bye mansion, bye bye lambo). you are not forced to only pay in legal tender. only preferred that legal tender is used as its deemed a higher status recognition level than other currencies/mediums-of-exchange.. a higher status that comes with a higher level of conditions of use

..
for instance
2009-2013 no one cared if people moved millions of value of btc
2016+ legislators/regulators cared about movements of value of $10k of any property/asset/commodity designation of bitcoin
if bitcoin becomes legal tender. they will limit ATM to spot valued limits of $500 a day and want services to report spot valued amounts of bitcoin moving over $1k

if bitcoin did get legal tender status in US. banks and treasuries can accept deposits/taxes in bitcoin as its reached the higher leve recognition stations.. but that does not then mean banks/treasuries will force everyone to only pay in the form of bitcoin
not unless further legislation is wrote to dictate such separate from the legal tender declarations
EG
el salvador still accepts US dollar as legal tender too, but could separately declare that dollar is no longer legal tender and deem it a lesser currency

your exaggeration of force has been contradicted by even yourself... because if there was force. then no other currency could be used for normal things. meaning bitcoin would have been banned by said force you infer

[dlightag]

The world is keeping advising on daily basis and the way of thing's is gradually changing, like when it comes to financial sector, digital assets is growing rapidly than analog transaction, in which it takes most educated once to understand how things actually going. While looking for legal tender is to create more panic to the government when them actually know the average amount that is going on in Bitcoin daily transaction, most of them won't approve legal tender, because then believe in cash, not digital currency in respect of protecting their citizen not to loose their funds.

[EarnOnVictor]

It's true that Bitcoin is legal mostly in majority of the countries in the world but the trust that's being said and classified as a legal tender is what people think that the non coiners will make them use and invest on it. And we've seen this in some countries that have their own legal tender but due to inflation, many of their citizens prefer another currency like in Venezuela, they have their own bolivares but many citizens prefer to pay in USD. And just as with country that have adopted bitcoin as a legal tender, they have a choice aside from own local currency.

Something being legal for payment is not the same thing as "legal tender".

But yes, forcing citizens to accept a currency (which is what legal tender does) will certainly promote it. Why should Bitcoin get this privilege and not say all of the other forms of payment like other cryptos and Haypenny currencies?

This sounds like the government playing favorites to me, which is unfair (and also very unwise).

You're right, once Bitcoin has been said as a legal tender and already made into law then all citizens are forced to adopt it. But what's good with most of the governments that don't have any stance against making it a legal tender or using it as a payment is that they don't ban it. IMHO, that's a better thing to accept than seeing them banning Bitcoin but even with that, we're seeing citizens that still use Bitcoin whether as a payment choice or an investment/asset. So, regardless of what is the government stands for with Bitcoin, as long as they won't ban it. Then, that's the favor that they can do to us and of course, to Bitcoin.

You are constructive enough, Bitcoin is such that has been active even as many governments of the world ban it. Even the citizens in the country where it is banned are still using it due to the decentralization of the coin, and thanks to the P2P initiative as well. This is why I know that the government of the world will not be able to legalise Bitcoin as a sole means of payment and others, and this is because of its decentralization characteristic, it is too dangerous to rely on it. I wonder why people would think that if the government legalizes Bitcoin, they will now believe that their citizens will rely on it only, no, that will never happen.

Even if they legalise Bitcoin, it will only co-exist with fiat, just like what we see in El Salvador, it can't be more or less than that. And nobody will be forcing either it or fiat on anyone, it will solely depend on the choice of the person in question to use it for payment, trading or investment. But the citizens, private and government institutions will be obliged to accept it as a means of settlement whether they like it or not. Only that they will try to plan their risk with it effectively, and life goes on. But still, I do not think this will be possible in most countries of the world as Bitcoin will only continue to exist just like how it is now but with more countries legalizing it.

[Natsuu]

Legal tender status doesn't mean forcing everyone to accept Bitcoin. It simply means that the government recognizes it as a valid form of payment for debts. If you think about it, debate around legal tender status often revolves around issues of regulation, acceptance and potential government control. While Bitcoin is legal in many places, discussions about its legal tender status involve complex considerations about its role

[hd49728]

Legal tender status doesn't mean forcing everyone to accept Bitcoin. It simply means that the government recognizes it as a valid form of payment for debts. If you think about it, debate around legal tender status often revolves around issues of regulation, acceptance and potential government control. While Bitcoin is legal in many places, discussions about its legal tender status involve complex considerations about its role

Legal and legal tender are different. With legal tender status, citizens in that nation can not refuse to receive bitcoin as payment from their customers. With legal status, they are free to refuse bitcoin payments.

With this legal tender status in El Salvador, a first nation ever make Bitcoin legal tender, people were hyped a lot in the past bull run. They did not actually understand what legal tender status means.

So far there are only two nations with Bitcoin-legal-tender status but they are not big nations. [1]

[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/legal-tender-countries/

[Miles2006]

Let the people freely ask what they want to ask from the government. And let the government decide what they think is better for the nation and her people.

As far as I know, Salvadorans, the citizens of the beautiful El Salvador where Bitcoin is a legal tender, are not forced to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a legal tender there, meaning the people, businesses, the government itself may accept it. But since there is another legal tender which is the US dollar, everybody has the option to prefer the US dollar. It would certainly be a different case if Bitcoin is the sole legal tender of a country.

Anyway, worry not about governments controlling Bitcoin. It can never happen.

As I said above (and I provided a link where you can read about El Salvador and Bitcoin), they are not "really" implementing legal tender there because they don't enforce it. (And I suspect it's because they simply couldn't in practicality--and I further suspect that El Salvador did this as a publicity stunt, not real policy).

I don't worry about governments controlling Bitcoin--it's legal almost everywhere. But the only thing that could change that is a government forcing everybody to use it, which means they'd need to regulate it.

I think this is where you're getting it wrong and you need to change your impression towards bitcoin and the word legal tender. The government can't force everyone to start using bitcoin if bitcoin becomes a legal tender, you just want a fight when there's nothing to fight about.
Making bitcoin a legal tender is just a means for citizens and bitcoin enthusiasts to freely use bitcoin as a means of payment etc. Secondly if you're actually sounding like this about the government bodies then you're actually saying they're foolish because even if bitcoin becomes a legal tender today you don't expect government to kick out their fiat currency, forcing everyone to use bitcoin simply means the fiat currency is no longer needed. The issue with government controlling bitcoin I can't relate with such and I don't see this happening sooner or later

[legiteum]

you have just contradicted and debunked yourself.

I'll try this one more time, and then I'm done.

The country's legal tender currency is the "backstop" of the legal system with respect to debts. A judge can order an amount in US dollars to provide just compensation for a debt, along side compensation that the plaintiff would agree to. In other words, if I am owed a car in court, the judge may say I get a car, but failing that, I will be awarded some amount is US dollars. I have no choice about the latter since US dollars are legal tender: I must be prepared to accept US dollars whether I want them or not.

That's all legal tender means. It does not mean the same thing as "legal". It does not do anything else that is tangible. It does not preclude people from freely trading in some other currency when both sides of the transaction agree to the trade (as you keep asserting that my posts assert, which they don't).

And again, I'm done with this branch of the thread, I think we've beaten it to death.

I think this is where you're getting it wrong and you need to change your impression towards bitcoin and the word legal tender. The government can't force everyone to start using bitcoin if bitcoin becomes a legal tender, you just want a fight when there's nothing to fight about.
[...]

Please please PLEASE lookup the definition and origin of the phrase, "legal tender". The government forcing people to accept the form of payment is exactly what it means.

It does not mean the same as "legal", which is the way you are using the term in your post.

And I do think this is something to fight about, because governments do stupid things based on people having false notions, e.g. what El Salvador did by giving Bitcoin a duopoly and spending millions of dollars that tiny country doesn't have in what amounts to a massive pump-and-dump scheme. I could very much see a push like this happening in our totally crazy Congress here in the US, but in our case it would cost us tens of billions of dollars just to implement the laws, we'd have an army of lawyers ready to exploit the law and sue people over it, and the US making such a move to put so much focus on one volatile asset could destabilize the world economy.

[buwaytress]

Yes and no. It simply means that the law obliges the merchant/receiver to accept payment in Bitcoin. Don't think anyone would go to jail for refusing it though. I know plenty of places I've lived in where they won't accept small change or large notes, or torn notes or dirty ones. These are all legal tender, but a shop might refuse to accept legal tender when it inconveniences them (say, 10000s of coins, or a huge 500-euro note which anyway would be hard to come by).

When you are asking for a government to pass a law, as would be required to make Bitcoin legal tender, then you are effectively asking that government to send people to jail (or fine them, or whatever) if they don't accept Bitcoin as payment. 

It is true that El Salvador's (ridiculous) law has not been followed because it's impractical and stupid, but that doesn't mean it's not a law.

I said yes and no -- there are plenty of laws that are never enforced. My own country has the death penalty for several offences, never carried out, never even used to threaten -- okay outside the point but in this case, there isn't even a stated penalty for this law. Not jail, not fines, nothing. Show me, cause I couldn't find it.

Show me one El Salvadoran who's been told the law penalises them for not accepting Bitcoin or one who said the law will penalise people for not accepting it (that's making your life easy, because we're not looking for anyone who's been penalised).

We've definitely beaten this to death though... so I'll say no more too.

[franky1]

i was the one telling you about the courts.. the treasury, the banks
i even underlined them several times in previous posts

you were saying how average payer-payee have to be forced.. which contradicts the openness of lack of legislation of such that allowed bitcoin free open use 2009-2013 before legislation was even wrote in regards to bitcoin in any way

yes a judge can order a $$ amount but the judge may also say "give back the car"
the judge may also refuse the car to be the settlement and demand it be dollar.. but thats CHOICE

a judges order is final.. but that order is not forced to only be in dollar amount. a judge has the choice. which usually is dollar first due to the highest level standard status dollar has by being legal tender

..
the point being things are measured in legal tender as its the highest level status currency deemed medium of exchange for a community/nation. where by being at that status assumes the most conditions and rules.
..
yes the SEC chooses to PREFER that ETF dissolvent of shares to be redeemed "in cash" instead of "in-kind" of a pegged asset.. but thats SEC CHOICE

yes the legislators write other laws like taxation and min wage to be rated in USD amounts, as its strengthens the EASE of people to just default choose to use dollar as medium of exchange. but its not FORCING businesses to only accept USD as payment of goods and services.. its just that legal tender has the legislative highest ranking standard of acceptance of trusted medium of exchange for a community/nation

but people are not FORCED to only accept USD in america for products, services, debts, fines, taxes.. courts can also request confiscation of assets or other items of value as conditions of settlement of fines/debt

now getting to the point of the topic now that i hope you dont exaggerate the "force" stupidity as the real world outside of your house has millions of examples everyday where you are incorrect about your use of "force" perceptions

by bitcoin being a legal tender. comes with consequences.. new laws to attain legal tender status means new conditions of use of said currency too.. such as auditing where your accumulation of currency come from and taxation of it and also having to explain things if you get or give certain amount of and how businesses must act, treat, and use it
.. and no its not about when people are forced to use it.. its more about if people choose to accept/give it they need to play by the rules of the status its given when/if using it

When you are asking for a government to pass a law, as would be required to make Bitcoin legal tender, then you are effectively asking that government to send people to jail (or fine them, or whatever) if they don't accept Bitcoin as payment.  

It is true that El Salvador's (ridiculous) law has not been followed because it's impractical and stupid, but that doesn't mean it's not a law.

I said yes and no -- there are plenty of laws that are never enforced. My own country has the death penalty for several offences, never carried out, never even used to threaten -- okay outside the point but in this case, there isn't even a stated penalty for this law. Not jail, not fines, nothing. Show me, cause I couldn't find it.

Show me one El Salvadoran who's been told the law penalises them for not accepting Bitcoin or one who said the law will penalise people for not accepting it (that's making your life easy, because we're not looking for anyone who's been penalised).

We've definitely beaten this to death though... so I'll say no more too.

there is no legislation in el salvador that puts people in jail if they choose not to use bitcoin

please get outside of your house and explore the world of real life examples