Quote from: Daltonik on Today at 02:35:24 PM

Quote from: Blawpaw on Today at 12:36:37 PM

Quote from: odolvlobo on October 18, 2022, 12:01:54 AM

Quote from: Blawpaw on October 17, 2022, 07:09:58 PM

Way Before El Salvador, the first country legally accepting Bitcoin as a legal Tender was actually Japan back in 2016. You guys can check the story here:
...
Besides, Germany was the first to recognise Bitcoin as private money and later as legal tender.

Those articles are not accurate.

Japanese law only makes it legal to use cryptocurrencies for payment. It does not require anyone to accept cryptocurrencies.

Germany declared Bitcoin as a "unit of account" and "private money", but not as "legal tender".

I guess it comes down to your definition of "legal tender". In the U.S., "legal tender" means it must be accepted for payments of debt, taxes, and dues. In El Salvador, not only is Bitcoin "legal tender" by that definition, but it must also be accepted for payments (when possible).

Ok, you may say that there is somewhat a big difference, but what we need to grasp here is that El Salvador was not the first country to allow for Bitcoin to be used as money, Even though it is not considered legal tender in Germany or in Japan, it actually works pretty much the same as legal tender. For me, this is the same as saying the colour is Red or it is Claret...

Nevertheless, there is a difference between a legal tender and a means of payment (legal), if the former is legally used to pay any payments and the creditor is obliged to accept it as payment of a debt, then the means of payment cannot be accepted by the bank as payment for a loan and can only be used to pay for goods and services, and also as an investment. In addition, legal tender is taken into account in the state's gold and foreign exchange reserves and GDP calculations.

I think that we have already recognized that countries can define legal tender or the specifics regarding what status that they are giving to bitcoin in whatever way that they like, so sure the claim that El Salvador was not the first country to legalize bitcoin is correct, but there are all kinds of variations of what countries have done - besides Japan and Germany in order to allow transactions to be done with bitcoin, and no matter which way the matter is sliced and diced, it should be appreciated that El Salvador is taking a way more pro-active stance in its promotion and pushing of bitcoin as an option for itself (as government even starting to stack sats) and its citizens, and figuring out various ways that El Salvador as a government can intertwine itself into bitcoin in a variety of ways.

So even if "technically" you (referring to Blawpaw) are correct it seems quite disingenuous to be trying to diminish El Salvador's efforts by suggesting that "other countries" were first or other countries were earlier and blah blah blah.. it's all the same... blah blah blah..

What a bunch of baloney. It's not all the same.. Consider the specifics, and there are differences, including but not limited to levels of advocacy and attempts to intertwine bitcoin into pre-existing, current or future financial/social systems.