Totally wrong, a legal tender is a type of payment that a country considers as legal and its law allow it to be used to settle debts which simply means a type of asset that can be used for financial things. A country never force you to use a legal tender but if you live in a country then you need to use it for trading of goods.

Let's say each country's fiat is a legal tender but they won't force you to use it, however if you want to purchase something from a shop or from someone then you will need it for the purpose. If Bitcoin becomes a legal tender then the governments won't force others to accept it but they will allow anyone to trade goods with it without any legal concerns. Ultimately, you'll be allowed to settle debt with either fiat or Bitcoin if a country makes it a legal tender.

Every country has its own native fiat currency, which is legally accepted by every individual, business, organization, and company in that country. The government of every country or your country doesn't force you to use your local currency, but you have to use it because it is what can be accepted in exchange for goods and services in your country. Unless you have someone who agrees to accept payment through other means, then you can pay, and you will not face any penalty as long as the person you are paying agrees to accept your offer. Categorically, what I am saying is that the government will not force you to use a particular currency, but if it is made legal and people accept it, you have no other alternative of payment unless the person you are dealing with agrees to accept a different means of payment from the one that is legal.

In my country, Bitcoin is not banned, nor is it a legal tender, but yet some people accept Bitcoin payments, and they don't face any government penalties for not accepting Fiat.

This recent time that the rate of inflation has hiked and the value of fiat currencies keeps depreciating, citizens in most countries, which are greatly affected by inflation, are looking for some asset to invest their money in that can appreciate in value and earn them a significant profit. So, it's not everyone who is suggesting that Bitcoin become a legal tender. Anybody can own Bitcoin as long as they understand the workframe of the coin and its technologies. It doesn't need to become legal tender before they can own it. People are looking for a safe heaven asset, an asset that they are sure can add value to their capital, and if everyone realizes that Bitcoin can be a solution for them, they will all be investing in Bitcoin.

Yeah that's true I think because Bitcoin is a legal tender doesn't mean its forced upon by everyone to use it and I can also relate this with other countries that don't even use Bitcoin, because I am believe that some countries do have two currencies as their legal tender and this means the two currencies are to be accepted for exchange of goods and commodity just as you explain but this doesn't necessarily mean every one is forced to use and doesn't mean that government controls the two currencies used cause I believe one of them might be a different currency maybe like the dollar.

This is very very wrong and I don't think you know what you are saying at all.
please you better not forget what's human rights is about because if you forget that, people will have to use you like you are nobody and you will be slave forever.
Everybody in their countryside have right to agree and to disagree, but corruption have make many of we to always put eyes in where money is coming and not something that will benefit us and others, don't be surprised to hear why some government don't want to make Bitcoin legal tender on there country.
Maybe some have received money from others who have higher authority than them so they have to follow the decision so they will won't lose their job's, if your government legalese Bitcoin and you don't want to accept it, you won't be forced ti accept it because you have right not to accept same the ither way, when your government didnt make Bitcoin legal and you are using it quiet without informing anyone who will be ni harm for you.

By that definition, cigarettes are "legal tender" in the United States since you can legally settle a debt using cigarettes. Or gold coins. Or furniture. Or baseball cards. Or whatever the counterparty accepts as payment.

So there's great news for you: by your definition, "Bitcoin is Legal Tender in the United States!".

But that's not the legal definition....

---

Bitcoin is legal to hold and trade for individuals (including China) in almost every country in the world except for a tiny few.

You are making up a problem here where there isn't one. You don't need to force people to accept Bitcoin. It does not need to be officially anointed as "legal tender" in order for it to be legal to trade and hold.

---

The definition of legal tender is that "all debts, public in private" must be able to be settled with this form of payment.

If I arrange, by some sort of trade, to get your car, and I pay you, and you don't give me what I asked for in return, when we go to court, the court can order you either give me the thing I wanted in trade, or the equivalent in US dollars.

That's it. That's all "legal tender" means. It means that everybody in the country must accept this currency whether they want to or not.

It's the government forcing the adoption of a means of trade.

The definition people seem to think it means is, "legal to trade", but Bitcoin and all cryptos are perfectly legal to trade in almost every country in the world, including the USA.




[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

The subject of bitcoin as a legal tender or not is subjective of the nation in question in this discussion, for those people living in El Salvador bitcoin is used as a legal tender in their country as it has the government legal backing for use of buying and selling of product and services. And it's worthy to remind you or anyone that the acceptance of bitcoin in country like El Salvador wasn't a forceful act on the citizens by the government because what I know they still make use of their country's fiat currency for exchange of goods and services.

For the fact that the government gives a legal backing to a thing as a legal tender it's appropriate to address it as that in that very country. Whatever thing we call money or give money value today is based on the value we as humans in a particular society consciously attached to it, and by the virtue of that unanimous attachment and acceptance as a government that what automatically makes it a legal tender.

Again, the word "legal tender" has a specific meaning derived from the US Constitution.

And shares of Apple (AAPL) are not "legal tender" and clearly investors are not living in fear that the government might "someday" make Apple illegal because investors have bid its worth to trillions of dollars.

In my opinion, the reason why people want "legal tender" status for Bitcoin is to use the power of the government to make their Bitcoin holdings more valuable. Just like anybody holding AAPL shares would like the US government to say something nice about it and enforce that into law.


Done. 



This was a point I was making about the "practicality" of the situation. Countries that force their citizens to carry health insurance, for instance, necessarily heavily regulate the health insurance business.

That would be true of the US government forced everybody to accept Bitcoin as payment: Congress would regulate it much much more. Instead of being "just another asset people can invest in", it's now something the government officially supports and voters are not going to accept giving that status away for free.

The illegality pronunciation on Bitcoin in some countries are either buttressed that the government ecosystems such as the banks and other government owned financial institutes should desist from any form of the bitcoins transactions which means you can't sell nor buy Bitcoin in any of the affirmed mentioned.
While some countries tends to buttress the laws in a general overview that not even an individual is authorized to transact with the Bitcoin which means anyone caught on trading or transacting with the Bitcoin in any form must has violated the laws governing their system and the Bitcoin currency. So anyone that insists on involving with the Bitcoin is at its high risk indulgences.

legal tender is not about replacing countries FAIT. its about allowing businesses to sell goods/services and pay taxes and such in bitcoin..
the negative side is as you later say, it then allows those countries governments to apply licencing/permitted use rules on the use of it and start requiring regulations on the services that use it. but legal tender is not about replacing fiat

the way governments achieve "legal tender" acceptance is usually a covert or overt ban. either just overnight or longterm. and then a permit/licencing acceptance of use under certain conditions acceptable to government (even the NYbitlicence done a covert ban, with overnight acceptance under conditions for NY citizens and businesses)

in short your first three sentences are inaccurate but the rest of post is a correctly a concern we should think about.

That's actually the exact definition of "legal tender".

Again, don't confuse the term, "legal" with "legal tender". They are two different things.



Again, like many here, you are confusing the terms, "legal" and "legal tender".

Bitcoin is legal in most countries. Anybody can trade in Bitcoin if they want to.

Bitcoin is not truly legal tender in any country, including El Salvador, since even there they don't universally enforce their law.

Legal tender means payees must accept Bitcoin as a means of settling a debt whether they want to or not.

It's also worth noting here how incredibly rare it is for this to even be an issue.

The US dollar's legal tender status only comes up in court judgements where there is disagreement about a settlement of a debt denoted in some other form of payment (e.g. a barter), in which case the court can make a judgement that an equivalent US dollar amount be paid, and the payor is forced to pay in that currency.

That's it. That's all "legal tender" actually does.