11 ms·
Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]
- JumpCrisscross 5y agoGuess this would mean one could settle state taxes with Bitcoin? That's sort of neat. Also means someone could have a nice dinner and then refuse to pay with anything but Bitcoin, at least under state law, which sounds less fun.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ahoka 5y agoImagine having to wait ten minutes at the checkout for the transaction to clear.
- eftychis 5y agoYou use an intermediary that will vouch for you in the meantime — say like a credit card company. Seriously, if it reaches that point, sure maybe Bitcoin is not going to work and we will pick something “new,” but for payment processing it doesn’t matter as intermediaries will pop up as they did for cash. Edit: Disclaimer: I worked and work on that “new” stuff.
- ahoka 5y agoBut is that really Bitcoin at that point?
- danlugo92 5y agoBitcoin Lightning is used for such transactions. I heard Cashapp's lightning implementation works well.
- Mindless2112 5y agoUnless Arizona has a law that says businesses have to accept all forms of legal tender as payment, I would expect that businesses would not be forced to accept Bitcoin as payment. Consider cash: > There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages... It is, of course, a bit different since cash, check, and credit are all denominated in dollars, whereas Bitcoin is denominated in Bitcoin.
- carnitine 5y agoI think they’re appealing to the idea that by eating food before paying, you are indebted to the restaurant, and the very definition of legal tender is that it is valid for all debts.
- HWR_14 5y agoYou don't have to sell me goods and services for cash. However, you must accept USD if I owe you money.
- nightski 5y agoIs that true? From my understanding as long as the restaurant is up front about what types of payment are accepted prior to the transaction they do not need to accept all forms of legal tender. But I am not a lawyer. From Investopedia: "Creditors are required to accept them as payment offered to discharge a debt; however, except where prohibited by state law, private businesses may refuse to accept some or all forms of cash tender provided that a transaction has not already occurred and debt has not been incurred by the customer." [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/legal-tender.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/legal-tender.asp
- henryfjordan 5y agoIf you order at the counter and pay before eating, a restaurant can deny cash. If you sit down and eat all the food, then they bring you the check, they must accept cash (because now you owe a "debt").
- spywaregorilla 5y agoBut if the restaurant states that they don't accept cash, then you agreed to those terms.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nybble41 5y agoThe whole point of legal tender is that it overrides any terms you may have agreed to beforehand.
- spywaregorilla 5y agoThat's not accurate. It's merely establishing the default behavior.
- nybble41 5y ago
- spywaregorilla 5y agoI don't believe you're obligated to accept legal tender for goods or services
- ceejayoz 5y agoDownvoted, but correct. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm > There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise. Only debts. Receiving a good/service might generate a debt, but not always; for example, if you pay in advance for a service.
- tedunangst 5y agoAnd will you get a free option to pay for dinner at the exchange rate when you order or when you finish?
- ForHackernews 5y agoWhich Bitcoin? SV? Segwit? Cash?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Mhaea 5y ago
- saxonww 5y agoDon't get too riled up about this. "Arizona" introduced nothing. State Senator Rogers did. It's probably not going to make it out of committee in the AZ legislature. I'd be surprised if anyone took it seriously. Edit: maybe someone knowledgeable can chime in; I don't think states can even do this. The US Government determines what is legal tender in the US.
- eftychis 5y agoI mean first step. Even if it makes it somehow to a vote and doesn’t make it or is overruled due to legal concerns, it’s a step and a pointer to the recognition it has amassed.
- slimsag 5y ago[deleting, I shouldn't talk about politics from an N=1 sample size]
- ForHackernews 5y agoNot so sure Salvadoran immigrants would be keen on bitcoin... https://futurism.com/el-salvador-bitcoin-economy https://futurism.com/el-salvador-bitcoin-economy > A Central American University survey conducted last September found that nine out of 10 citizens in the country didn’t know what bitcoin was, and eight out of 10 said they had little to no confidence in the digital cash.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- defgeneric 5y agoThe English-speaking media is way behind on the general sentiment regarding Bitcoin in El Salvador. Most Salvadorans I know are enthusiastic about Bitcoin. Any opposition fizzled once those who had no experience or were confused by it saw no change to their daily lives when it became available. The politics of El Salvador have changed pretty drastically in the past few years with the election of Nayib Bukele and the subsequent dominance of his Nuevas Ideas party in the assembly. The traditional left (FMLN) and right (ARENA) parties were completely voted out. My guess is that Bukele's plan with Bitcoin is more political--he's inviting a new class of crypto-rich that he can play off against the influence of what remains of "las catorce familias," i.e. the remains of the entrenched oligarchy that allied itself with the neoliberals. From the point of view of political economy, the adoption of Bitcoin is a smart move in the current situation, where the USD only benefits the old power structures that control imports and services, and where a move back to the colón is no longer feasible after the decimation of the export agro-economy (coffee, sugar, corn). An analogy I hear often from Salvadorans is that El Salvador could become a Latin American Singapore, with Nayib Bukele as a kind of Lee Kuan Yew.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- charonn0 5y agoWouldn't this violate the federal Constitution? > No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. -Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
- yawaworht1978 5y agoI am totally against all things Bitcoin, however, it's not coined exclusive in the us and the constitution is not immutable, else it would be a very bad document that can't get with the times. Anything in the constitution is not canonical forever.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> Anything in the constitution is not canonical forever. It is, however, canonical until amended or SCOTUS interprets it away. Constitutionally, it appears quite clear Arizona can't do this currently, and the law as a result would almost certainly be immediately stayed and struck down if passed.
- posterboy 5y agoThe required interpretation appears readily available. Arizona wouldn't issue anything, but they'll gladly accept it.
- paxys 5y agoArizona has zero control over what is or isn't legal tender. This is a meaningless bill.
- reactspa 5y agoIf the USA truly believed in competition, free markets, and capitalism, they wouldn't be so scared of currency competition. I suppose it's just like the Assange and Snowden situation. The USA releases all kinds of reports about press freedoms around the world and "authoritarianism", but somehow the USA never includes itself in these reports.
- TradingPlaces 5y ago“Arizona” did not introduce this bill. A single Senator, Wendy Rogers, with no co-sponsors introduced a bill. She is a well-known wingnut, who introduces a lot of legislation that never even gets to committee. https://www.billtrack50.com/legislatordetail/25708 https://www.billtrack50.com/legislatordetail/25708
- papito 5y ago"Someone introduces a bill" is not news. Most of these die in obscurity. Wisconsin just introduced a bill to undo their slate of electors sent for the long-ago-settled Presidential election of 2020.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoIt would be interesting to see if coinbase or other bitcoin pushing company funded her campaign.
- nimbius 5y agoive been pondering some of these crazy bills around crypto or the culture war at the state level and ive come to a single generous conclusion... Under capitalisms fourth epoch, neoliberalism, there simply isnt much left for the state to really do. Its completely divorced by monetary policy save for ardent enforcement of austerity or the class structure through physical means, and its only ever called upon each decade to bless the rescue of lumbering appendages such as trade and banking when they fail. The state runs the military but has no real say in foreign trade, save when its called upon to enact the will of its true constituency (the capital class) in affecting the firm will of globalization in its varied permutations. the state runs education only in that it may abdicate itself from the role through privatization, and the state has a say in healthcare only in that its made compulsory its purchase through law. its regulatory agency has largely been diluted to a brisk rubber stamp in all but the most arcane function. So left to their own devices, states must remain relevant in that they exude autonomy and purpose, lest their citizens grow restless and apathetic to the call of democracy twice or thrice a year. a law here, an edict there, some popcorn and theatricality always help...even if its ultimately at the expense of the tax payer through lawsuits and defeat, it at least keeps them interested and entertained. it acts as a bundle of shiny car keys to a child, lest apathy at the polls completely delegitimize the state as an organism.