I almost never psuedo-RT stuff from Twitter, but I very strongly agree with the anti-forced-tender position in this thread.

C.f. "Art. 7. Every economic agent must accept bitcoin as payment when offered to him by whoever acquires a good or service."

· · Web · 3 · 1 · 4
@harding there's exceptions for people who can't for technical reasons which basically vague enough to include everything.

@crunklord420 There's an exception and it's vague, but vagueness doesn't mean any legal judgement will favor the citizen claiming an exemption. In general, you shouldn't depend on a vague law being interpreted the way you want.

@crunklord420 @harding I am receiving feedback from people on the ground in El Salvador. People are scared and confused. The 90 days thing feels like a deadline and they don’t know what to do. The debate on telegram groups and Twitter is really heated. I totally agree with the thread. Why include the government when bitcoin was exactly created to not depend on the government? Makes me doubt about Jack and Strike intentions. Don’t trust, verify.

@crunklord420 @harding there so many red flags. It’s not just the law thing. Scammers are doing what they want with the people. We are a group of bitcoiners from South America with experience and we are trying to help people clear the doubts but it’s not enough. Didn’t strike think about the education piece? Wasn’t it obvious the people from El Salvador were going to be exposed to scammers like this?

@crunklord420 @harding we as bitcoiners have pointed out scammer behaviors when a guy jumps on a stage and puts up an act. This time was a “pro bitcoin” guy putting up the act and everyone clapped without naturally questioning the reasons of the announcement and how it was made… Satoshi disappeared. He didn’t like the spotlight. Strike and the president love the spotlight. Too many red flags. I hope I am wrong for the sake of the people.

@harding Would it be better if its "may accept" I get that with law the individual words matter and interpretation of said law comes from the precise language.

@Atlas_Khan may accept would be great. Other things in that law like allowing people to pay their taxes in BTC and not having to pay capital gains on BTC are great. People just shouldn't be forced to use bitcoin (or any other currency).

@harding @Atlas_Khan
"may accept"
AFAIK, that would exclude it from the (very) definition of legal tender.

wrt OP: I like it that you are ideologically consistent :)

From what we understand, the vendor can choose whether the money is converted directly back into #USD or whether they keep it in #BTC. The nation itself will have a massive pool from which people can dip into to exchange back into Fiat.

So, end-of-the-day its a massive gain in terms of choice, no?

@harding @Atlas_Khan #ElSalvador #bitcoin

@dsfgs @harding @Atlas_Khan
I wasn't discussing the pros and cons wrt choices.

I was looking for clarification wrt 'legal tender' as I thought one MUST accept legal tender, not CAN or SHOULD.

Pizza chain Dominos has recently stopped accepting cash payments in .nl and I was wondering whether I can do more then just not/never buy there again, iow legal action.
It's a new phenomenon here and if there's a way I can force them to reverse that decision, that'll probably stop others from doing that.

Yes, being legal tender if you insist on using it they cannot stop you. Sorry to hear they are making it hard though. We don't think they have an obligation to have the correct change on hand but if they are a professional institution they really should.

Even if Bitcoin were made legal tender in Australia we would only use it via proper direct channels, no Lightning surveillance stuff.
@harding @Atlas_Khan

@FreePietje @dsfgs @Atlas_Khan At the US federal level, there'd be no requirement for Dominos to take your cash. Some states and some cities have laws requiring businesses to accept cash (the laws are advocated to ensure people without access to bank services can still buy stuff).

Legal tender in the US just means that courts can convert other forms of debt into cash obligations. Nobody is forced to accept USD at the point of sale.

Okay, iwrc Australia operates a bit differently. If the restriction is COVID inspired the business should have hand sanitizer (our cash notes, are plastic, not paper so they can be wiped with hand sanitizer, too).
@FreePietje @Atlas_Khan

@harding @FreePietje @dsfgs And you feel thats a good thing? Not looking to fight, more just want to hear why you think this.

@Atlas_Khan @dsfgs @FreePietje why I think what? (Not sarcastic, we talked about several things, so I'm not sure which you're referring to.)

@harding @dsfgs @FreePietje Whether or not at a federal level should it be by law that any and all business including say dominos be willing and able to accept any and all legal tender. I would think that is not a good thing to have commune to be able to restrict at will what form of currency they will strictly use.

@Atlas_Khan @dsfgs @FreePietje IMO, the owners of Dominos should be able to choose what currencies they accept or don't accept.

We can understand if someone wants to *encourage* another currency, but blatently refusing a physical Fiat, at this stage, is anti-consumer, and a gravely disrespecting to customer's privacy.

Atlas are their independent pizza houses in your area that you can support?
@harding @FreePietje

@dsfgs @harding @FreePietje Can and do, they love cash and prefer it (Based Islam). Talked to them before, its funny how ancap and anti immigrant they were. They hate taxes and gov. Always prefer paying cash until they start taking Monaro lol.

Without meaning to generalise Islamic folk seem really switched on. The govt is supposed to be an embodiment of ThePeople but USA is another thing entirely, and noone can blame them for strongly disliking it.

Re Vominoes, #publicShaming could work. A #flyer that explains, 'global pizza franchise in area disrespects privacy and forces online fiat payments, as independent citizen I shame them, here's n alternatives".

You might get a free pizza for your troubles.
@harding @FreePietje

@dsfgs @harding @FreePietje I don't think that will be effective, this is an issue of globalism and nothing short of major constitutional amendments will be able to fix the problems relating to money, give the flyers a try though. It could work I suppose.

Generally speaking almost all effective movements require grassroots, local, ground based action. It's just how most good things that favour the people, get started.

Flyers over the ages have been played importants roles.

Its part of the reason we developed a (CC-BY-SA) #)FediFlyer, which anyone can print. You are welcome to change the text and images, if you change it a lot we just ask that our attribution be removed.
@harding @FreePietje

@Atlas_Khan @dsfgs @FreePietje I don't see consumers and merchants as two separate classes but as two halves of one exchange aimed at improving their mutual material prosperity. I think it's the abstraction that is money which allows you to see them as separate. If we were talking about barter, it would be clearer. If Alice and Bob agree to trade apples for bananas, neither one should be able to force the other to accept Carol's cantalope.

@harding @dsfgs @FreePietje Seems this seems like allowing company script and that the purpose of money is being misplaced. Its a huge tyrannical step to have company's especially those whos goods/services be able to dictate what form of currency can be used. I'm torn on this, Money is simply a technology, yet allowing private institutions to be able to refuse legal tender in favor of another would allow and transfer power away from "the people" and into the hands of Corporate oligarchs.

Using barter as the template here

Adam has apples, Betty has water, Carl has wheat, and Dom has his own manpower to trade. For sake of the argument no one is Violent and these are the only people readily available for each other, they must by there own agreement accept valid trade offers.

Adam and betty get along well with each other and trade, However Betty hates Dom and has no need for his labor. Dom gets along with Adam but not betty or Carl. Dom works for Adam for apples to get water from betty.

In response betty refuses to trade her water for apples and instead demands wheat as a preferred currency to hurt Dom. Adam now has to convert his apples to wheat from carl for water. Dom wishes to convert his apples to wheat and Carl accepts only at a rate which leaves Dom with too little wheat to get any sufficient amount of water. Without a universal subject, all agree to use (Money) power is in the hands of those with monopoly's and oligarchs.

The point im trying to make is that allowing people or entity's/corporations to have the ability to control what tender they will accept can and will and has led to tyrannical situations where legislation is required to avoid a need for coercion (violence) for people to fulfill there needs and wants.

@Atlas_Khan @harding @dsfgs @FreePietje "anti consumer"? If you're selling something you can chose what to sell it for, right?

If your local currency starts to hyperinflate, you're either gonna accept some foreign currency or close your business.

This is not so much about #hyperinflation, they are accepting the Fiat via online payments.

Also in a hyperinflation, all things remaining equal, the amount of physical cash will start to vanish because the physical printers, at least in Australia (we have plastic notes with holograms and such), will not be able to keep up with it hyperinflation. Our opinion. Could be wrong.

H'Infl'n is an disaster, distinct from inflation. It can't be policed.

@Atlas_Khan @harding @FreePietje

@stevenroose @harding @dsfgs @FreePietje Restricting the kind of currency or money that may be used arbitrarily or not allows for manipulation of consumers. Its why Bus's must accept cash and not only bus cards. Its why banks must receive payments in any form given. Its why company script is bad and tyrannical. Its about controlling money and thus people.
@dsfgs @FreePietje @harding Its a double edge sword with Crypto, I just hope one day we don't go from "Can't wait till crypto becomes normalized" to "I wish crypto was not neutralized". People being forced to accept crypto is still the issue, I don't know how to feel about it. I think its a good thing to have it set up to where a person could engage in commerce totally with crypto but "right to refuse service" is another angle. Then again, services like water, heating, banking should in all likelihood should be a right as "cancel culture" has shown to being a more predominate (though not new) issue concerning freedom.

The person doing the purchase has utmost choice. That is important from a democratic perspective. If vendors want to remain network-free then they'll be permitted to continue that, but for those vendors who over the past years tacitly accept/adopt a range of abstract digital credit systems, and actually #USD (or in our case #AUD) is one, could be seen as a disturbing one, then accepting BTC (converting it immediately to USD at 0 cost) is just another interface.

@harding @FreePietje

@dsfgs @harding @FreePietje In theory what shinny rocks should people use and made to be used is the basic question at the root of this.

@FreePietje @harding @Atlas_Khan Yeah AFAIK this is not correct. Legal tender means that "it must be accepted to settle all debt", which means that if someone has a debt to you, he is allowed to settle it to you with the legal tender.

But that has no effect on commercial txs. There might be other laws restricting what currencies you can accept for commercial txs, but that's unrelated to legal tender.

AFAIK it's legal in (most) Europe(an countries) to refuse cash or card payments.

@harding in what scenario would a basic majority of grocers be willing to accept bitcoin as payment without government mandate lol
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!