Bitcoin becoming Legal tender

[legiteum]

Even though they have established bitcoin as a legal means of payment and transactions, El Salvador still uses fiat currency as a means of transactions. But the advantage they have is that bitcoin is free to use to buy anything because bitcoin is legal as a transaction tool there.

Bitcoin transactions can cost up to $30 US dollars. Bitcoin is absolutely not free to use.

It's the very opposite of free, actually.

I remember those days when I am still new in crypto that I see and happen to experience that bitcoin transaction fee is less than a dollar , but now never that i happen to experience this low fees and hoping that this will come to happen again in our time now specially that now bitcoin is continuously growing year after year.

I don't think we'll see any solution to bitcoin's transaction fee problem anytime soon, especially as the price of bitcoin climbs higher every day, and transaction fees will continue to rise even higher.
Recently, there have also been some people who have created some threads saying that they wish bitcoin would be legal tender in their country and replace fiat currency. But are they rich enough to use bitcoin without worrying about transaction fees? Are they generous and willing to pay an extra $4-5 per transaction just to buy breakfast for under $2?

Satoshi made transactions for Bitcoin intentionally slow and expensive so there would be a cost of being a node in the network. It was never designed to handle "normal" everyday transactions, only the very special ones that people trying to avoid the government need.

And most people I talk to actually don't know that Bitcoin transactions are so expensive and slow because they use a broker app which "buys" Bitcoin (or whatever crypto) for them and puts their purchase in some centralized database.

[Medusah]

If they aren't on-chain transactions, then they aren't decentralized, and they aren't actually Bitcoin.

Lightning network is real bitcoin.  To send satoshis, you need to have channels backed by real bitcoin.  And you retain the ability to return to them on-chain whenever desired, without entrusting custody to any external entity.  Sounds enough decentralized to me.  

Credit card transactions are rarely more than a dollar or two, and take no more than a few seconds.

Credit card companies such as Visa typically impose a fee of at least 2.5% along with a fixed charge of $0.20 in many countries.  For instance, if you purchase an item worth $50, the credit card company would receive about $1.50.  With Lightning, the fee might be less than 10% of that amount, though it largely depends on your setup.  

No country in the world uses Bitcoin as a mainstream means of transacting--because to do so would be a practical impossibility.

I didn't mention "mainstream".  My point is that it does serve a purpose, even in developing countries such as Nigeria.  In such countries, it gains more attention than in developed. 

[Doan9269]

Lets see the way this year is going to be after the experience of the halving and the new all time high of bitcoin getting close to $200,000 then we may say that some countries may because of that make decisions on adopting bitcoin as a legal tender, just as we have it with El-Salvador and Central African Republic, there is likely we see more countries into this adoption as a legal tender before the year runs out, because bitcoin has been globally seen and recognized as a digital means of making payment.

[MarjorieZimmermanGinger]

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.

Why is the direction on counterfeit money and isn't there any other way that can be used so that payments using counterfeit money can be reduced. Fraud does not recognize bitcoin or fiat because it is done by immoral individuals and I think the involvement of fraud is not based only because of the problem of the Fiat and Bitcoin currency itself.

Bitcoin can be an alternative for some countries because there is no way there are many countries that apply Bitcoin as a legal transaction tool. Because every country has rules governing the distribution of Fiat currencies and how to make transactions.

     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;

It took a long time to see Bitcoin as a legal source of device because financial institutions and central banks have their own valid products that are officially used. In contrast to El Salvador because they do not have official currencies so they are easier to apply to the wider community. El Salvador has succeeded in making Bitcoin as an official currency and they bind with much clearer and better rules.

[synchronym]

Bitcoin legal documents can only be accepted when the government of that country wants to accept them as legal documents, moreover, it is not possible to accept bitcoin legal documents. Because the developed countries of the world have become the gateway to the law, many countries have not given Bitcoin as a legal document, so if the government does not want it, Bitcoin can never be legalized as a legal document. However, there are many countries in which the government may not be able to manage Bitcoin if it falls into our hands today, and the situation will become even worse.

[legiteum]

If they aren't on-chain transactions, then they aren't decentralized, and they aren't actually Bitcoin.

Lightning network is real bitcoin.  To send satoshis, you need to have channels backed by real bitcoin.  And you retain the ability to return to them on-chain whenever desired, without entrusting custody to any external entity.  Sounds enough decentralized to me.  

Sure, but those "channels" are not decentralized...

Credit card transactions are rarely more than a dollar or two, and take no more than a few seconds.

Credit card companies such as Visa typically impose a fee of at least 2.5% along with a fixed charge of $0.20 in many countries.  For instance, if you purchase an item worth $50, the credit card company would receive about $1.50.  With Lightning, the fee might be less than 10% of that amount, though it largely depends on your setup.  

And a credit card transaction for, say, a dollar would cost you perhaps 10 cents. I still think this is exorbitant (my platform charges $0.005 for all transactions, forever, always, and can scale to millions of transactions per second), but this is the sort of level LN would need to get to just to equal the status quo, and then it's unclear what the benefit would be over plain old credit card transactions...

No country in the world uses Bitcoin as a mainstream means of transacting--because to do so would be a practical impossibility.

I didn't mention "mainstream".  My point is that it does serve a purpose, even in developing countries such as Nigeria.  In such countries, it gains more attention than in developed.  

But even a small country like Nigeria would need something that would perform at levels far higher than anything using blockchain could do.

But of course from my viewpoint, if you are going to go with a centralized architecture, do it the right way, which means not using a thing that was never meant to do that...

[johnsaributua]

There are two directions, the point is that when trading is done with its own decisions, it certainly minimises the loss at any time including getting the maximum profit to save it. It is different if the currency is done by 2 people directly either crypto assets or physical goods, if the seller / owner of bitcoin sends an amount of 100$ last year at the time of ath maybe 14000$ see what will happen today, and when the recipient realises this of course it can be concluded how lucky he is. bitcoin is indeed an asset but if it is made into a payment instrument that will go against the nature of value and the nature of fiat money in general. this kind of transaction can occur because of the innovation and awareness of each and voluntarily it is okay, this is just my daydream why not all countries legalise and only allow trading like investment instruments in general. I myself also want to accommodate bitcoin when the price is cheap maybe barter with some one, unfortunately the opportunity at that time has not been in my favour

[Medusah]

Sure, but those "channels" are not decentralized...

You might say they lack complete permissionlessness, but on the whole, they exhibit a significant degree of decentralization.  I can establish channels with almost anyone, my coins are not held in custody by them, and I can transfer my coins across the network by using channels belonging to others.

And a credit card transaction for, say, a dollar would cost you perhaps 10 cents. I still think this is exorbitant (my platform charges $0.005 for all transactions, forever, always, and can scale to millions of transactions per second), but this is the sort of level LN would need to get to just to equal the status quo, and then it's unclear what the benefit would be over plain old credit card transactions...

In the LN, you would never pay $0.10 (144 satoshis) to send $1 (1440 satoshis).  You would pay something like 10 satoshis, which is like a dollar cent.  That's the benefit. 

Is your platform Haypenny?  If so, what would occur in the event of its closure or bankruptcy?  How would users retrieve their funds?

[blckhawk]

Lets see the way this year is going to be after the experience of the halving and the new all time high of bitcoin getting close to $200,000 then we may say that some countries may because of that make decisions on adopting bitcoin as a legal tender, just as we have it with El-Salvador and Central African Republic, there is likely we see more countries into this adoption as a legal tender before the year runs out, because bitcoin has been globally seen and recognized as a digital means of making payment.

It's not even that close to 100k and you're at 200k already? Wow! Let me in on what exchange you're getting those numbers because I really want to sell my bitcoins there. It's going to be difficult for bitcoin to even do that if you ask me, it's having a hard time going to 100k right now even though bitcoin ETFs are a success so how are you coming up with those numbers because that's not going to happen anytime soon for bitcoin. I don't know about you but CAR might not be enough in terms of adoption to push it to that level but I'm just speculating stuff, bitcoin always surprises us anyway so I guess, we can only wait and see.

[Raflesia]

Lets see the way this year is going to be after the experience of the halving and the new all time high of bitcoin getting close to $200,000 then we may say that some countries may because of that make decisions on adopting bitcoin as a legal tender, just as we have it with El-Salvador and Central African Republic, there is likely we see more countries into this adoption as a legal tender before the year runs out, because bitcoin has been globally seen and recognized as a digital means of making payment.

Even until now bitcoin is still not close to the price of $100k how could they jump to $200k because now before bitcoin steps to a higher price they must try to beat expectations where the price of $100k that we have always discussed in the last 2 years comes true.
Making bitcoin a legal payment option in one of these countries is not an easy thing because there needs to be strong regulations and of course the support must be strong also from its citizens because it is certain that pros and contracts will occur when making bitcoin a legal means of payment in a country and we may know what happened where El Savador became a reference even though at this time they are still very good at bitcoin adoption but until now there is still a lot of debate going on for the issue of adopting bitcoin san making them a payment option in their country so it is possible that other countries that want to follow must be prepared with this possibility in the end.

[legiteum]

Is your platform Haypenny?  If so, what would occur in the event of its closure or bankruptcy?  How would users retrieve their funds?

The same thing that would occur to any project, including Bitcoin. You could certainly argue that Bitcoin itself has a more established system of governance, but that's the only difference. Bitcoin is a piece of code just like our system is. In both cases there would be ways of winding down the project while allowing people to safely retrieve their data.

To be clear, adding the word, "blockchain" doesn't do anything by itself, since it ultimately relies on a data store like any other system. In the case of Bitcoin, the physical integrity of the data store is well protected by its redundancy, and the software in the project is well-governed by the organization and the fact that there are a lot of eyes in the project.

Virtually all the world's wealth is stored on data systems that have a data store, software, and governance, Some of those systems are more secure than others. Blockchain does not inherently make a system more secure, and it doesn't inherently make a project a safer place to store your wealth, as is evident from thousands of failed blockchain projects out there.

Indeed, unless the project is an extremely visible one like Bitcoin, you are much better off trusting a real company whose owners can be identified and sued should they be negligent with your holdings, rather than project started by anonymous people.

To answer your question directly, our users would be taken care of, lest all of my own personal wealth be taken away in lawsuits. Since we're a normal registered American corporation, so I have to fear something like that.

And while there are thousands of failed blockchain projects to point at in the last 10 years that have lost consumers billions of dollars, can you point to the last time a major American bank has lost the savings accounts of its holders? I'm not saying any data store is infallible, but non-blockchain data stores for wealth have a far better track record than blockchain data stores, despite the mythology spread around by Bitcoin fans. And with most Bitcoin holdings these days being stored in some centralized database governed by some corporation, it would seem as though most consumers understand this, too.

[Medusah]

You could certainly argue that Bitcoin itself has a more established system of governance, but that's the only difference.

It's called decentralization, and no other system on the planet has achieved it to such a degree.  I have much more confidence in it compared to any arbitrary centralized platform.

Indeed, unless the project is an extremely visible one like Bitcoin, you are much better off trusting a real company whose owners can be identified and sued should they be negligent with your holdings, rather than project started by anonymous people.

Anonymous people starting it doesn't transform it into a permissioned network.  Yours is undeniably permissioned.  You cannot ensure the longevity of my wealth over decades.  What if you alter your conditions along the way?  What if you devalue your currency on purpose?  What if regulations change unexpectedly?  What if your system encounters data breaches or hacking incidents?  What if a conflict arises, or a war, resulting in the confiscation of all assets belonging to your company?

[legiteum]

You could certainly argue that Bitcoin itself has a more established system of governance, but that's the only difference.

It's called decentralization, and no other system on the planet has achieved it to such a degree.  I have much more confidence in it compared to any arbitrary centralized platform.

Yes, but the word "decentralization" alone doesn't mean anything. Bitcoin in particular is pretty safe (although nothing is 100%). But lots of projects that were decentralized pretty well have failed.

Bitcoin's code base, for instance, is by definition centralized. It has very good governance which is what makes it safer, but the point here is that Bitcoin's system security stems from the same things that other system's security does, not by some kind of magic.

Indeed, unless the project is an extremely visible one like Bitcoin, you are much better off trusting a real company whose owners can be identified and sued should they be negligent with your holdings, rather than project started by anonymous people.

Anonymous people starting it doesn't transform it into a permissioned network.  Yours is undeniably permissioned.  You cannot ensure the longevity of my wealth over decades.  

LOL, absolutely nobody can "ensure the longevity of my wealth over decades" and if anybody tells you any different they are trying to steal something from you. Bitcoin could crash in value tomorrow (it's done this before), just like any other asset.

What if you alter your conditions along the way?  What if you devalue your currency on purpose?  

Haypenny has published the Haypenny Promise which is our contract with our community. This is a set of six simple agreements we have with our users. Hence the short answer to your question would be, "we would get sued and/or arrested" which is the same reason Citibank can't just keep the money in your checking account for themselves.

What if regulations change unexpectedly?  What if your system encounters data breaches or hacking incidents?  What if a conflict arises, or a war, resulting in the confiscation of all assets belonging to your company?

All of these things could happen to Bitcoin as well, and could happen to you the deed on your house, your car, your brokerage account, and absolutely anything you own including your Bitcoin since your private keys are vulnerable to rubber hose cryptanalysis (and good luck trying to prove "you really owned that" when you complain to the police since, well, how would they ever be sure?).

Bitcoin is not magic. It's a store of wealth based on software and data stores and governance. It is doing very well, and it is a very safe system, but so are lots of other systems in our civilization.

[Medusah]

LOL, absolutely nobody[/b] can "ensure the longevity of my wealth over decades" and if anybody tells you any different they are trying to steal something from you. Bitcoin could crash in value tomorrow (it's done this before), just like any other asset.

Nobody can totally ensure anything in life, I know.  But there are certain things that are more resilient to change than others, and people put their wealth on assets that have the best chance to remain intact over the long term.  You wouldn't invest in the USD by saving in a bank account.  Why?  Because it changes.  It is printed like a toiler paper and its value is tied to whatever government is elected in the US.  Then, you need to take into account the credibility and integrity of the bank you're entrusting your wealth for decades.

Gold, on the other hand, is much better to keep your savings to, because it is a property.  Unlike a fiat currency, gold isn't subject to that arbitrary manipulation.  I'd bet that preserving wealth through gold holdings over the next three decades would outperform doing so in USD.

Bitcoin could crash, yes, but it has proven itself as a savvy investment over the long run, same as with gold.  People prioritize property over security because property possesses a self-sustaining nature with minimal human intervention.  You can't really argue that your platform is more or less the same with that. 

[Bravut]

LOL, absolutely nobody[/b] can "ensure the longevity of my wealth over decades" and if anybody tells you any different they are trying to steal something from you. Bitcoin could crash in value tomorrow (it's done this before), just like any other asset.

Nobody can totally ensure anything in life, I know.  But there are certain things that are more resilient to change than others, and people put their wealth on assets that have the best chance to remain intact over the long term.  You wouldn't invest in the USD by saving in a bank account.  Why?  Because it changes.  It is printed like a toiler paper and its value is tied to whatever government is elected in the US.  Then, you need to take into account the credibility and integrity of the bank you're entrusting your wealth for decades.

Gold, on the other hand, is much better to keep your savings to, because it is a property.  Unlike a fiat currency, gold isn't subject to that arbitrary manipulation.  I'd bet that preserving wealth through gold holdings over the next three decades would outperform doing so in USD.

Bitcoin could crash, yes, but it has proven itself as a savvy investment over the long run, same as with gold.  People prioritize property over security because property possesses a self-sustaining nature with minimal human intervention.  You can't really argue that your platform is more or less the same with that. 

Bitcoin can't crash in value but in a bear market situation. I don't seem to understand why some are still doubting the possibility of investing in Bitcoin. Just like Gold, Diamond all thus asset has already stayed through good and bad times not to talk of bitcoin that has already proven to be a trusted asset to invest in.
All asset experience downtime if am to use such word, that doesn't imply they loss the value in the market.  In as much there is supply and Demand influencing bitcoin price it value will keep increasing.

Sure thing is nothing is predictable, and everyone chooses to invest based on there knowledge about such asset of which they are ready to risk there resources for. In essence do what suites you.

[legiteum]

LOL, absolutely nobody[/b] can "ensure the longevity of my wealth over decades" and if anybody tells you any different they are trying to steal something from you. Bitcoin could crash in value tomorrow (it's done this before), just like any other asset.

Nobody can totally ensure anything in life, I know.  But there are certain things that are more resilient to change than others, and people put their wealth on assets that have the best chance to remain intact over the long term.  You wouldn't invest in the USD by saving in a bank account.  Why?  Because it changes.  It is printed like a toiler paper and its value is tied to whatever government is elected in the US.  Then, you need to take into account the credibility and integrity of the bank you're entrusting your wealth for decades.

Gold, on the other hand, is much better to keep your savings to, because it is a property.  Unlike a fiat currency, gold isn't subject to that arbitrary manipulation.  I'd bet that preserving wealth through gold holdings over the next three decades would outperform doing so in USD.

In various times in history, had you invested in gold you would have either lost your shirt or made a fortune. Gold goes up and down in value just like every other hyped-up asset. And the USD is no different. There is no "magic asset" that only goes up in value.

And quite the contrary, like any other investment instrument, gold absolutely is subject to arbitrary manipulation, as many major market makers in commodities have shown.

Bitcoin could crash, yes, but it has proven itself as a savvy investment over the long run, same as with gold.  People prioritize property over security because property possesses a self-sustaining nature with minimal human intervention.  You can't really argue that your platform is more or less the same with that. 

Bitcoin lost 75% of its value only two years ago. There's absolutely nothing stopping that from happening again. Or it could double in price. Who knows. Unlike gold, Bitcoin has no practical value in the world (it's not even Monera), so it's a pure meme investment--the value depends on how people "feel". That could change at any moment.

And yes, Haypenny currencies are also meme investments (once we're out of beta they will be  anyhow ). Haypenny allows people to place bets on very small amounts e.g. just a dollar or less since the transaction fee is so low (a half cent, aka a "haypenny", and it will be this price forever).

Unlike blockchain-based currencies, however, a Haypenny currency could (and should  ) be used for every single transaction on the planet because the platform will scale to that level while undercutting every other form of high-scale value transfer by at least an order of magnitude.

I wouldn't suggest anybody put their whole life savings in either asset, however. They might be fun places to make a little money sometimes, but these instruments are very volatile.

[tech30338]

The reason people don't do this is because you would need to wait around for up to 30 minutes, and pay up to 30 US dollars for a single transaction.

Are you pointing out that this is what slows the rate or the reason behind the lack adoption of system by the people?
The simple remains that the big players will not fold hands to watch this, as this is a practical illusion.

 Decentralisation of Financial Power

You can do more research on this to get clarity and not judge from a time based transaction process as the limiting factor.

So if I pay for my coffee at Starbucks with Bitcoin and I have to pay a total of $38.50 for a cup of coffee and wait 30 extra minutes for it, this is all just a "practical illusion"?

And in case you haven't noticed, Bitcoin has done nothing whatsoever to "decentralize financial power" and in fact it's centralized that power more than ever before as the market is controlled by the movements of big Bitcoin investors, most people use centralized brokers to buy and sell Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is effectively regulated just like any other investment asset is because people must pay taxes on their earnings lest they want to end up in jail.

Bitcoin works just fine as an investment instrument, but it's nothing more than that.

if it will be possible you don't need to wait for 30mins, just show them the transaction id, that its already paid,its digital remember? at the same time if the lightning network will be available it will be more faster,

[Litzki1990]

El Salvador is the first country to declare Bitcoin as its legal tender. As simple as we are discussing here but for the President of this country it was not that easy at all. The decision to accept a virtual coin as a legal tender of a country is certainly more challenging and more difficult. Before the adoption of Bitcoin as a legal tender in El Salvador, there may have been a lot of debate about the fact that the digital currency they are relying on so much can disappear from the market at any time and if this digital currency disappears from the market at any time, this  But they cannot file any case or anything else. Despite all the arguments and controversies, the president of this country remained steadfast in his decision and announced Bitcoin as a legal document in his country. He may be able to stick to his decision but the President of other countries cannot take such decision so easily because if the decision goes against them they will lose their power.

[Medusah]

Bitcoin lost 75% of its value only two years ago. There's absolutely nothing stopping that from happening again.

For once more, I don't argue what is possible to happen.  I'm focusing on what is likely to happen on the long term, based on the historical trends and inherent characteristics of each asset.

Unlike gold, Bitcoin has no practical value in the world

Then, I frankly don't know what to say.  If you fail to recognize the significance of censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer, incorruptible, capped, permissionless cash, then perhaps there's a lack of imagination on your part. 

I wouldn't suggest anybody put their whole life savings in either asset, however.

You don't have a choice.  It's not a "don't like that asset, so I'm not risking my life savings".  In life, you're presented with choices, and whether you recognize it or not, opting not to act is still a form of action (albeit a rather poor one).  If you perceive saving in Bitcoin and gold as risky, then you're essentially saving in USD.  You can't opt out of storing your savings in an asset or currency.

[legiteum]

Unlike gold, Bitcoin has no practical value in the world

Then, I frankly don't know what to say.  If you fail to recognize the significance of censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer, incorruptible, capped, permissionless cash, then perhaps there's a lack of imagination on your part. 

Bitcoin was invented for one reason: to create a numerically-delineated trading mechanism that would resist government subpoenas, and this is a something that indeed serves a purpose (so I overstated it somewhat by saying "no practical value").

The reason I overstated it was because Bitcoin was only partially successful at this since the publicly-viewable ledger allows authorities (and anybody else) to employ chain analysis in order to triangulate transactions.

Hence to fully realize Bitcoin's only unique purpose, you either need to add on the original model (e.g. use a mixer, or engage in other kinds of tradecraft), or use a follow-on architecture that solves this problem e.g. Monera.

For me, Monera is the only "correct" cryptocurrency because it actually accomplishes what blockchain was supposed to accomplish--so at this point, insofar as Monera is a viable system, Bitcoin doesn't really have a practical reason to exist when there's a better alternative.

I wouldn't suggest anybody put their whole life savings in either asset, however.

You don't have a choice.  It's not a "don't like that asset, so I'm not risking my life savings".  In life, you're presented with choices, and whether you recognize it or not, opting not to act is still a form of action (albeit a rather poor one).  If you perceive saving in Bitcoin and gold as risky, then you're essentially saving in USD.  You can't opt out of storing your savings in an asset or currency.

There are literally millions of investment instruments besides Bitcoin, gold and USD. There's land, stocks, other digital currencies, private businesses, bonds, cars, watches, fine art, baseball cards, Hummel dolls, and so on. You can invest in gold or Bitcoin by physically holding it or through an ETF.  You can buy currencies of other countries. You can bet on horses at the track or on who will catch the next touchdown pass on Sunday.

All these instruments have risk, and they all have the ability to go up or down in value. It's certainly not the case that gold and Bitcoin are the only possible investments in the world which will go up in value over time.