Bitcoin becoming Legal tender

[Bravut]

I have been pondering on the motion of making bitcoin a legal tender, if bitcoin becomes legal tender, it can be used in place of fait currency to purchase goods, used  for transactions,etc.
      For me, making  bitcoin will take years because that motion will never be assigned by our financial institutions and central banks. The main reason is what we call;
    
    Decentralisation of Financial Power
   Removing the power to control money and financial asset from
   centralized body like; Central banks, and other financial institutions.
   Thus our fait currency begin to operate in a decentralized system as
    bitcoin.
   And we know that our governments,elites that take the will of the
   people at stake will be at the verge of losing everything if that occurs,
   meaning the system will be open and run by anyone at all that means f 
    freedom.
   We all know bitcoin runs in a decentralized system, so making it a legal tender simply means the government will also have control over it and it system which wasn't the original motive of it
   So two colliding forces, which can't be met at all.
 I know El Salvador has bitcoin as a legal tender, but can only be used as a means of payment and transaction which also works in other countries.
    IMF,World Bank, Central Banks of countries these are the major controllers and Most powerful institutional bodies,so imagine making this system decentralized.

  What do you think will be the fate of our Economy..?
 Let share our ideas on this guys.

[1714500916]

1714500916

[1714500916]

1714500916

[1714500916]

1714500916

[1714500916]

1714500916

[1714500916]

1714500916

[1714500916]

1714500916

[_act_]

I know El Salvador has bitcoin as a legal tender, but can only be used as a means of payment and transaction which also works in other countries.

El Salvador has USD as a legal tender. That makes bitcoin to be a legal tender in the country to be easy as they do not have their own fiat. But another country that makes bitcoin a legal tender is CAR and also an island in Honduras. Other countries can do the same if they want but they will prefer not to do so but prefer just on their fiat.

What do you think will be the fate of our Economy..?

Bitcoin is increasing in value. It will be better than fiat but other things has to be put in place so to make a good effect on the economy. Only bitcoin can not make the economy good.

[Medusah]

We all know bitcoin runs in a decentralized system, so making it a legal tender simply means the government will also have control over it and it system which wasn't the original motive of it

No.  This means the government will regulate it.  Regulating and controlling are not the same thing.  For instance, if a government passes a law making certain cryptocurrency mandatory as payment methods for vendors, then it does not mean they control them.

In the previous centralized system, the government issues money and controls the monetary policy.  In this new system, this power is taken away from the government and given to the public.  People now have the freedom to choose which money is the best.

[Princess Leah]

No.  This means the government will regulate it.  Regulating and controlling are not the same thing.  For instance, if a government passes a law making certain cryptocurrency mandatory as payment methods for vendors, then it does not mean they control them.

In the previous centralized system, the government issues money and controls the monetary policy.  In this new system, this power is taken away from the government and given to the public.  People now have the freedom to choose which money is the best.

You're right, Bitcoin is a Decentralised monetary asset and was designed in a way that it can't be influenced by the government and other centralised sectors, making it difficult for the government to have control over it's volatility, the least they could do is regulate and track down citizens or officials that use it for criminal activities. Most people think because it decentralised then it's not traceable but Yes, Bitcoin can be traced due to recorded blockchain transactions which are set down on a public ledger, making it easy for authorities to make analysis concerning the address used for criminal activities.

 Well that's one of the reasons I think Satoshi created Bitcoin, for everyday users to adopt it as a means of transaction and other financial activities for now Bitcoin is not here to replace the fiat currency cause it's not vastly adopted around the globe, but was set aside as an alternative monetary asset which cannot be manipulated by the government and can be used to carry out quicker and faster transactions without any third party.

[Darker45]

For me, it is enough for Bitcoin to be legally accepted as a payment method. It doesn't have to be a legal tender to perform its function. If countries recognize Bitcoin as a currency, that would already be enough.

For Bitcoin to become a legal tender is a long shot, and could even just be considered as an extra mile. Bitcoin doesn't have to be a legal tender for businesses and customers to accept it as payment. I think it is enough catalyst for Bitcoin's adoption rate for a government to declare it as an acceptable currency.

[Helena Yu]

Bitcoin should be in grey area (explicitly not legal nor illegal) in order to achieve a complete freedom.

Even Bitcoin isn't accepted as legal tender, but if it was accepted as commodity or intangible asset, the government already intervening Bitcoin. It's not about controlling Bitcoin, they e.g. Blackrock, El Salvador etc will never ever control Bitcoin because they didn't own the hash rate. But they will harm the users' privacy.

If Bitcoin is banned by a government, this harm the freedom to choose because it make people on those countries will be scared to buy Bitcoin, even though they have a way.

[Nrcewker]

I have been pondering on the motion of making bitcoin a legal tender, if bitcoin becomes legal tender, it can be used in place of fait currency to purchase goods, used  for transactions,etc.

No one wants to replace the fiat currencies. Moreover no one also wants Bitcoins to be treated as a currency. Bitcoins are limited in numbers, hence many people will treat it as a digital asset only. Yes the one benefit that it can get by becoming a legal tender is that, people won’t have to do the transactions by hiding from the government in order to pay additional taxes. Only the taxation can be improved if it’s legalised.

[avikz]

I don't see Bitcoin becoming a legal tender ever in this world, unless majority of the world is destroyed by a nuke war. Central banks and governments won't allowed it to happen ever. No government would want a currency to become a legal tender which they cannot control. There is no other reason.

El Salvador is an exception and the rest of the world will not follow the example of a small country like El Salvador.

[pakhitheboss]

The only problem with Bitcoin is its volatility and a legal tender is not considered good if it is volatile. I think most struggling economies would try to hold on to Bitcoin as their reserve rather than having it as a legal tender. It is not easy for struggling economies to have USD as reserve but they can use their fiat to buy Bitcoin and hold on to it like they did earlier with gold. The price of Bitcoin has been always going in a positive direction and they can use this opportunity to increase their reserve currency which in the future they can exchange with global currencies or gold. I think Bitcoin as a commodity to storage value would be a great opportunity for these countries to restore their economy which depends on how the political structure of that country is and how good is the leader leading that country.

[AicecreaME]

We all know bitcoin runs in a decentralized system, so making it a legal tender simply means the government will also have control over it and it system which wasn't the original motive of it

No.  This means the government will regulate it.  Regulating and controlling are not the same thing.  For instance, if a government passes a law making certain cryptocurrency mandatory as payment methods for vendors, then it does not mean they control them.

In the previous centralized system, the government issues money and controls the monetary policy.  In this new system, this power is taken away from the government and given to the public.  People now have the freedom to choose which money is the best.

They can never control Bitcoin, but they can regulate it to a way that it will suffocate most users. We all know that the government is crazy when it comes to big money, and all I can imagine is that they will regulate it badly, like you have to pay big taxes in order to have bitcoin, trade bitcoin, etc.
Since Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency was not made like money, they can never regulate it like the way they regulated fiat, in my opinion.

[Blitzboy]

This shift is HUGE. Making Bitcoin legal tender? I promise that will transform our economy.

Decentralization of financial power is the future, not a buzzword. Big banks and the IMF hold all the cards. But Bitcoin? Levels the playing field. Freedom and money control are at stake. You may respond, "But, the government will get control if Bitcoin becomes legal tender." Not so! Returning authority to the people, not the government.

El Salvador leads. Choice, competition, and a fair economy are what matter, not revamping the financial system overnight. Bitcoin as legal tender: our economy's fate? Greater strength, resilience, and freedom. I think it'll be great.

[yazher]

For me, it is enough for Bitcoin to be legally accepted as a payment method. It doesn't have to be a legal tender to perform its function. If countries recognize Bitcoin as a currency, that would already be enough.
For Bitcoin to become a legal tender is a long shot, and could even just be considered as an extra mile. Bitcoin doesn't have to be a legal tender for businesses and customers to accept it as payment. I think it is enough catalyst for Bitcoin's adoption rate for a government to declare it as an acceptable currency.

Compared to other countries that are banning bitcoins for their citizens and take action whenever they find someone who actually holding it, I rather just accept bitcoins as a payment method as well than live in a world where I can't even own a bitcoin cause of the regulations. so it's convenient to have local exchanges as well so that you can rely on everything you want to buy bitcoins and also use it every time you want to sell some of your bitcoins, I'm ok with this and I'm telling you this is a big leap and a huge success for bitcoins that we have reach this level nowadays.

[Zigabel]

 What do you think will be the fate of our Economy..?
 Let share our ideas on this guys.

El Salvador like you did mentioned had made it a legal tender already and it's been doing well, it hasn't affected their economy adversely, it's actually been made a means of payment but not the only means like their local fiat, it's been seen as an approved and better alternative for money so you can say that it will affect the worlds economy if the follow suit like El Salvador rather using them as a proto type, studies can be made about how they managed to adopt such and yet it's got no effect on their economy negativity while Bitcoin still retains it's decentralized ability.

Better way or improved ways of managing this could be gotten from the study and be adopted in to other economy especially those who's got a better economic system already they will be the first to try it's and than others will follow and see how to tailor it to fit theirs aswell.

[Doan9269]

I have been pondering on the motion of making bitcoin a legal tender, if bitcoin becomes legal tender, it can be used in place of fait currency to purchase goods, used  for transactions,etc.

Bitcoin already is a legal tender in El-Salvador and Central African Republic, aside that, people all over the world are making use of bitcoin for payment purpose as they could use with fiat, all you need is to locate a place where bitcoin is one of their supported payments medium.

For me, making  bitcoin will take years because that motion will never be assigned by our financial institutions and central banks

People are using bitcoin bitcoin even without the support of the governments or the financial regulatory system, we cant expect an adoption from them or that they should support for what we want that will five the privacy needed, they cannot support a decentralized network because it gives them no authority over such, without the governments approval, people are still using bitcoin independently through its p2p network

[Frankolala]

It is not compulsory for government to make bitcoin a legal tender before the citizens of that country can benefit from bitcoin. As long as it is legal in that country, then the citizens are free to use it as an alternative means of payment, which was the main purpose why it was created by Satoshi. Bitcoin volatile nature makes it very risky to be considered as a legal tender, and moreover it was not created by the government.

The limited supply of bitcoin can also be another challenge for government, because they are used to printing money whenever the economy is facing a decline. Bitcoin cannot be duplicated or printed making it above their power to control. No one can get rid of fiat, because it is to work with bitcoin hand in hand.

[legiteum]

I have been pondering on the motion of making bitcoin a legal tender, if bitcoin becomes legal tender, it can be used in place of fait currency to purchase goods, used  for transactions,etc.

We discussed this a few weeks ago extensively in this thread.

The primary take-away from that thread for me was that most people don't actually know what legal tender really means.

Most people think it means the same as "legal", and assume that if Bitcoin is not "legal tender" then it must be illegal. That is not the case.

The actual definition of "legal tender" comes Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution, and there are two things of note about this:

1. Legal tender is very narrow in its scope, and realistically only applies to a very small number of transactions.

2. Insofar as it does apply, it has the effect of forcing people to accept Bitcoin (or whatever) even if they don't want to.

Asking for Bitcoin to be "legal tender" is asking the US government to force Bitcoin down people's throats. Not only is this unwise, it's unfair: why Bitcoin, and not, say, Ether? Or Dogecoin? Or all Haypenny currencies?

Bitcoin is legal in the United States, and in most countries across the globe. For the most part, nobody is stopping you from accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment.

The reason why Bitcoin is not universally accepted is because it takes up to 30 minutes and can cost 30 dollars for a single transaction. This is not a government conspiracy, it's a simple technical limitation.

Stop asking for Bitcoin to be "legal tender". It's not what you want, it's stupid, and while any smart government would never do this, there are a lot of dumb governments out there who will waste a lot of the people's money on a boondoggle like they did in El Salvador.

[Iranus]

I have been pondering on the motion of making bitcoin a legal tender, if bitcoin becomes legal tender, it can be used in place of fait currency to purchase goods, used  for transactions,etc.

But to be able to propose and receive the Government's listening and attention. I want to know who you are and what role do you have to influence your government? This idea is not new, everyone who is an investor wants to propose this to the government. But the problem is we are nothing, how will the government listen to us? Furthermore, the government is not stupid enough to never learn and research about bitcoin, they know everything about it but they don't want to make it legal tender.

[Bravut]

I have been pondering on the motion of making bitcoin a legal tender, if bitcoin becomes legal tender, it can be used in place of fait currency to purchase goods, used  for transactions,etc.

We discussed this a few weeks ago extensively in this thread.

The primary take-away from that thread for me was that most people don't actually know what legal tender really means.

Most people think it means the same as "legal", and assume that if Bitcoin is not "legal tender" then it must be illegal. That is not the case.

The actual definition of "legal tender" comes Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution, and there are two things of note about this:

1. Legal tender is very narrow in its scope, and realistically only applies to a very small number of transactions.

2. Insofar as it does apply, it has the effect of forcing people to accept Bitcoin (or whatever) even if they don't want to.

Asking for Bitcoin to be "legal tender" is asking the US government to force Bitcoin down people's throats. Not only is this unwise, it's unfair: why Bitcoin, and not, say, Ether? Or Dogecoin? Or all Haypenny currencies?

Bitcoin is legal in the United States, and in most countries across the globe. For the most part, nobody is stopping you from accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment.

The reason why Bitcoin is not universally accepted is because it takes up to 30 minutes and can cost 30 dollars for a single transaction. This is not a government conspiracy, it's a simple technical limitation.

Stop asking for Bitcoin to be "legal tender". It's not what you want, it's stupid, and while any smart government would never do this, there are a lot of dumb governments out there who will waste a lot of the people's money on a boondoggle like they did in El Salvador.

  Your making a good point, but pointing out the fact only dumb government can make it legal tender is absurd and pointless.
  Bitcoin becoming Legal tender is more than anything we can think about because we need more than half of the elites, and though wasn't the original intention of bitcoin system. We don't need the US government to be initiator, or if they don't accept it can't come through.We are simply discussing the fate of the economy of it becomes.
    You trying to put out that because it requires 30 minutes before transactions go through costing $30 is not a solid background for the denial of acceptance. You are a bitcoiner, people of all races are doing transactions everyday, we know about the high cost of transactions but still we believe and work with the system everyday.

 What the masses want is profiting and learning more about bitcoin, it is also stupid for you to think that people trying to bring up an idea about the system is stupid.
You can read the thread  again to understand more. Thanks for your contribution.

[legiteum]

    You trying to put out that because it requires 30 minutes before transactions go through costing $30 is not a solid background for the denial of acceptance. You are a bitcoiner, people of all races are doing transactions everyday, we know about the high cost of transactions but still we believe and work with the system everyday.

I point this out because many people seem to think Bitcoin's lack of adoption for mainstream payments is some sort of "conspiracy" by governments, "big banks", the Illuminati, or whatever. It's not. The US government (and most other governments) are not meaningfully hindering the adoption of Bitcoin.

If Bitcoin was faster and cheaper than normal credit card transactions, and could scale to handle the world's everyday transactions, then it most likely would have long ago.

Blockchain was never meant to scale to mainstream levels, and it solves a problem that only a few people actually have. It works perfectly well as an investment, and it's reached incredible heights already. But it's silly want it to do impossible things.

[Natalim]

Let's start with defining what is legal tender first.

What Is Legal Tender?

Legal tender is anything recognized by law as a means to settle a public or private debt or meet a financial obligation, including tax payments, contracts, and legal fines or damages. The national currency is legal tender in practically every country. A creditor is legally obligated to accept legal tender toward repayment of a debt.

This pretty looked like a national currency. Me, I don't like that, I want bitcoin to still be recognized to what it is now, more like a payment method, an alternative to fiat.. That way, less regulation necessary to it, and I think it will not pass as legal tender since it's very volatile, and it's decentralization might be the opposite definition of a government which promotes centralization.

Also, legal tender or fiat (most popular) are not limited, I mean the government could print money if they desire, bitcoin is limited because it's supply is fixed.