I don’t see or hear that anyone en masse asked the government to accept this as legal tender. Bitcoin was originally conceived for precisely a different reason, from user to user with its own internal market, bypassing banks and other financial elements.
At the moment, I have enough of everyone functions and I can easily exchange crypto for fiat money in my country, without notifying the government. Yes, they are trying to regulate everything and propose a legislative framework, but to be honest, this worries me very little for many years, I somehow managed without them.

In real life or social medias, people aren't really asking for that, but in this forum you will find there are a lot users especially newbies want Bitcoin to be accepted as legal tender when they're not even use Bitcoin frequently as a currency.

Imagine if Bitcoin is already accepted as a legal tender in their country, they won't use Bitcoin for paying something and they will give many excuses e.g. complicated, high fees, privacy concern etc.

Words mean what they mean. The phrase, "legal tender" has a very specific meaning derived from the US Constitution, Section 10.

What most people want--and already have in almost all countries--is for Bitcoin to be legal. The phrase, "legal tender" means something completely different, and it's not what one should strive for.


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.


Again, like so many people here, you are confusing the terms, "legal" with "legal tender". They are two very different things. Bitcoin is "legal" in most countries, and El Salvador passed a (hardly followed) "legal tender" law in order to force its citizens to accept Bitcoin.

And if Bitcoin loses 66% of its value again, like it did 18 months ago, we'll see how Nayib Bukele's reelection prospects look  .


You don't have to go any further than this very thread to see lots of people asking the government to make Bitcoin legal tender.

I agree with you that they don't actually know what they are asking for, and if they learned the actual definition of the term most people would not want that, but people do indeed ask for Bitcoin to be given a government-mandated duopoly (which, I guess if you own a lot of Bitcoin, that's really good for your investment portfolio, right?).



Again, that's simply not what the term means. Please use Google to learn more about what this term actually means, or read about it in this thread.

This is the entire point of this thread: people are using the term, "legal tender" and not understanding what they are actually asking for. Please learn, and I think if people did learn it, they would stop using this phrase.

It's fine to ask for Bitcoin to be "legal" or even "regulated", but that's very different that a government forcing people to accept it which is what legal tender does.

Exactly.

Furthermore, having Bitcoin acknowledged by a government of an entire country as legal tender is one hell of a PR stunt for Bitcoin. This means more adoption, more investments and more people added to the Bitcoin community. That is a huge bonus that comes along with the legal tender news. If you are a true Bitcoiner, you would be cheering for this, not asking people to stop demanding for it. Anything that helps Bitcoin grow and become more valuable (because more people want it and there is a limited supply) is a good thing and it should be supported...

go fly to el salvador.. you will soon realise that is not the case
bitcoin being legal tender status there offers more choice

however by bitcoin being legal tender status, comes with conditions such as its taxable(registering your earnings/acquisitions)

..
highlight
el salvador still accepts USD as legal tender too
even if el salvador courts made a court order of a fine/debt repayment denominated in bitcoin. if the guilty party does not have bitcoin. he can still ask the court for a USD value and pay in USD

I know it's not the case because they don't enforce their law: they can't, because it's a stupid law (or it was just put there so the country's leaders could profit from their Bitcoin holdings).

And the government forcing you to do something you don't want to do is not "more choice" it's less choice. Like any government-granted monopoly, Bitcoin being given a special status will necessarily diminish other products that didn't get the benefit of the government's largess. It would be like the US making McDonald's the official fast food of the USA: this would screw-over Taco Bell, Burger King, and Wendy's, and everybody else who isn't McDonald's.

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.

If we want Bitcoin to grow, we don't need the government but if we want bitcoin to go far, we need to stop fighting the government because what they say is final, you can't win a government if they don't want you to use something, they will fight you until they get what they want, we don't want that between bitcoin ecosystem and the government because it will always hurt the price, most likely up and down without much growth even in the long term.

The government doesn't like bitcoin but institutional investors like bitcoin and the only way they can be allow to use it without any problems is legality status been approved, if it's approved it's going to make it centralized but I think it's going to be on the level of the coins they hold, it wouldn't affect bitcoin protocol because we all can see how the hash rate is been distributed across the world, if the government policy is going to make every household hold bitcoin, I'm cool with the legal status.

YOU are the one combining terms

"not illegal" is SEPARATE to being LEGAL
you keep thinking they mean the same thing

being legal means there is legislation
not illegal means NO legislation to stop it
bitcoin 2009-2013 was not illegal because there was no legislation stopping it. much the same with many things that have no legislation involving it

learn the difference

as for legal tender
that is something separate again. requiring further legislation AND REGULATION
i have told you this before, that the legal tender status is above legal status
legal tender status is a HIGHER status.
its about the bank, court, treasury custodial and service acceptance

you really should get out and explore more.
i have already challenged you twice to experiment in the real world
a. go to retailers or services that do loyaltypoints/airmiles and realise businesses are not forced to only accept legal tender
b. go to retailers and see many that are not forced to accept all denominations/forms of legal tender. (places that only accept cash, places that only accept debit card, places that refuse cash and coinage... businesses can choose)

...
the arguments of bitcoin and legal status have not just been about legal tender or not
over the years many changes of status have occurred incurring more and more legislation and regulation(more ways in which governments are clawing at the edges digging their jurisdictional grounds into aspects of bitcoin economy)

2009-2013 - no legislation, no regulation. bitcoin was freely open to be used how ever by whomever due to no legislation. thus not illegal
2014-2016 - legally recognised as currency by some countries(us, eu, etc) (not legal tender, just currency recognition.. there is a difference)
2016-now  - commodity/asset category, means extra regulation jurisdictions added
2017-now  - some countries legally banned it(china, etc) making it illegal. via making legislation to call it illegal

in el salvador, people are not FORCED to pay everything in bitcoin. banks are not forced to make their customers deposit in bitcoin nor forced to accept bitcoin as withdrawals government dont force citizens to pay taxes in bitcoin(especially if people dont have bitcoin)..
people can CHOOSE. however if people have bitcoin or fiat(both legal tender) they have to account and pay taxes/debts of the acquired value they have in those forms.

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.