Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]

#81

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 9:42 PM UTC

posterboy wrote: post #78

ceejayoz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that wouldn't work. The gold printout would be worth its weight in gold, not the value in Bitcoin of the data printed on it. If you used $1 worth of gold to print one BTC worth $40k, the recipient would only be legally required to count it as $1 towards your debt.

Who says that? This thread seems to be full of arm chair lawyers as another comment just told me that there is no gold standard since 1970. Whatever, the thing I want to buy with the particular coin would immediately reduce 40.000 fold in price. That might be illegal in some sense, if contracts are bound to stay valid across fluctuation, but that's basically how markets work. In the end it's all numbers on paper anyw…

> Who says that?

The dictionary?

The gold would be legal tender. Doesn't matter what's written on it; I can doodle artwork on a $10 bill and claim it's worth $1,000 because my art is awesome, but people aren't required to accept it as anything more than $10 towards a debt.

> another comment just told me that there is no gold standard since 1970

What part of that do you object to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

"On 15 August 1971, the United States terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold, effectively bringing the Bretton Woods system to an end and rendering the dollar a fiat currency."

Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]

#82

Post by posterboy » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 9:46 PM UTC

warkdarrior wrote: post #80

posterboy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is stretching the definition of what "to make legal something" means, because ... [1] It should be "to make something legal" or it requires "legal tender" to be something lexical and precisely not a sum of its parts, in which case they are not making the thing, they are just giving it a new name, which is not new at all and it is loaded with connotation that invites equating the denotated items to a group. Thus…

USD banknotes and coins are also perishable in the sense that they do not last forever. The only difference in that sense between banknotes and blueberries is the magnitude of their lifetime (coins and banknotes last decades, blueberries last weeks). I doubt perishability is the legality of making something legal tender.

It's understood that nothing lasts forever, but bank notes are not perrishable in the sense that blueberries are unless taken out of circulation.

The slippery sloap that you want to go down is trivially infelicit

Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]

#83

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

posterboy wrote: post #76

ceejayoz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arizona, the state , may choose to accept Bitcoin, for things like fines, state taxes, etc. Arizona, the state , may not choose to require Arizonans to accept Bitcoin as legal tender. That power is reserved for the Federal government. The bill attempts the latter, and is flatly unconstitutional.

Another comment argued with sources that this is not entailed, because businesses can choose to decline electronic cash already. I have heared that Disneyland is crazy like that and EC is virtually ubiquitious, but that's not the norm. Conversely, you don't expect to pay with a 500 everywhere (if you have that, EU phased it out recently)

You don't (typically) incur a debt to Disneyland, so legal tender doesn't apply. Disneyland can refuse to accept cash at the ticketing office, but if they let you in and billed you later, they'd have to. The concept of legal tender is specific to payment of debts.

If you did a credit card chargeback and Disneyland sued you for the new debt that caused, they'd have to accept cash as payment.

Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]

#84

Post by NovemberWhiskey » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC

posterboy wrote: post #76

ceejayoz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arizona, the state , may choose to accept Bitcoin, for things like fines, state taxes, etc. Arizona, the state , may not choose to require Arizonans to accept Bitcoin as legal tender. That power is reserved for the Federal government. The bill attempts the latter, and is flatly unconstitutional.

Another comment argued with sources that this is not entailed, because businesses can choose to decline electronic cash already. I have heared that Disneyland is crazy like that and EC is virtually ubiquitious, but that's not the norm. Conversely, you don't expect to pay with a 500 everywhere (if you have that, EU phased it out recently)

Again, you're confused about what "legal tender" is.

It is up to sellers to decide what form of payment they accept. It is perfectly legal for a seller to accept only a form of electronic payment, or only certain sizes of bank notes, or payment in bitcoin or blueberries or bubblegum. This is all totally fine and has nothing at all to do with the concept of legal tender.

Legal tender is simply what kind of payment must be accepted for the settlement of a monetary debt. If you owe your bank $1,000 as an overdraft, the bank is required to accept repayment of that debt in U.S. currency. It cannot require another form of payment; meaning if it refuses U.S. currency then tries to sue you, the court will find that the debt has been satisfied. In practical terms, this never happens.

Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]

#85

Post by posterboy » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 9:55 PM UTC

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #79

posterboy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is stretching the definition of what "to make legal something" means, because ... [1] It should be "to make something legal" or it requires "legal tender" to be something lexical and precisely not a sum of its parts, in which case they are not making the thing, they are just giving it a new name, which is not new at all and it is loaded with connotation that invites equating the denotated items to a group. Thus…

No-one is talking "making legal [something]". The compound noun "legal tender" is a legal term of art that refers to forms of payment that must be accepted in the settlement of a debt. When we say "the law would make Bitcoin legal tender in Arizona", we mean "the law would require that Bitcoin be accepted for the settlements of debt within Arizona's jurisdiction". There is no sensible alternate reading nor lexical no…

I believe that's precisely what it is because I learned French as well as English and can distinguish adjectives from adverbs without a made uply ending.

A "legal term of art" still only means that it's interpretable, otherwise it would be without any interpretation. Except renegades that are not part of the circle of who's supposed to do the interpretin!

I doubt that the "must accept" is part of the definition, though it's an easier definition and therefore more commonly read than book length treaties. Clearly it's only the state who has to afford acceptable means of exchange, eg. by nurishing an exchange market.

Which is very likely the aim of the bill. Whatever you consider not sensible is without further ado, notwithstanding.

Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]

#86

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 9:55 PM UTC

posterboy wrote: post #82

warkdarrior wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USD banknotes and coins are also perishable in the sense that they do not last forever. The only difference in that sense between banknotes and blueberries is the magnitude of their lifetime (coins and banknotes last decades, blueberries last weeks). I doubt perishability is the legality of making something legal tender.

It's understood that nothing lasts forever, but bank notes are not perrishable in the sense that blueberries are unless taken out of circulation. The slippery sloap that you want to go down is trivially infelicit

Perishibility doesn't matter. The Constitution doesn't say "the government shall not use perishable forms of legal tender". It's not done because it'd be dumb, not because it's forbidden.

Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]

#87

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 9:57 PM UTC

posterboy wrote: post #85

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one is talking "making legal [something]". The compound noun "legal tender" is a legal term of art that refers to forms of payment that must be accepted in the settlement of a debt. When we say "the law would make Bitcoin legal tender in Arizona", we mean "the law would require that Bitcoin be accepted for the settlements of debt within Arizona's jurisdiction". There is no sensible alternate reading nor lexical no…

I believe that's precisely what it is because I learned French as well as English and can distinguish adjectives from adverbs without a made uply ending. A "legal term of art" still only means that it's interpretable, otherwise it would be without any interpretation. Except renegades that are not part of the circle of who's supposed to do the interpretin! I doubt that the "must accept" is part of the definition, thou…

"I doubt that the 'must accept' is part of the definition"

You can doubt it all you like.

https://thelawdictionary.org/legal-tender/

> Legally required commercial exchange medium for money-debt payment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender

> a form of money that courts of law are required to recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary debt

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103

> 31 U.S. Code § 5103 - Legal tender:

> United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]

#88

Post by nybble41 » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 10:01 PM UTC

posterboy wrote: post #75

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confused. This part of the Constitution limits what states can do. It doesn't limit what the U.S. Congress can do, and the U.S. Congress has passed a law that makes U.S. coins and currency legal tender at what is currently 31 U.S. Code § 5103. Federal law takes precedence over state law, and therefore it is the U.S. government that has decided, on Arizona's behalf, what constitutes legal tender. The sa…

This is stretching the definition of what "to make legal something" means, because ... [1] It should be "to make something legal" or it requires "legal tender" to be something lexical and precisely not a sum of its parts, in which case they are not making the thing, they are just giving it a new name, which is not new at all and it is loaded with connotation that invites equating the denotated items to a group. Thus…

"Legal tender" is an idiomatic term of art and refers to the category of things which one is obligated to accept in payment of a debt. It is not merely the intersection of "legal" and "tender". The vast majority of goods which are both "legal" and "tender" (i.e. legal to use for payments provided both parties agree to the exchange) are not "legal tender".

To "make" something "legal tender" means to add the thing to the category of "legal tender". In this case, if Arizona were to make Bitcoin legal tender (in Arizona) it would mean that any creditor subject to Arizona's laws who was offered payment of a debt in full in Bitcoin would be obligated to either accept that offer of payment or simply write off the debt. Either way, so far as the state of Arizona and its courts are concerned, the debt would be considered paid.

The problem with this bill is that U.S. states—but not the federal government, unfortunately—are specifically barred from making anything but gold or silver legal tender. This is to prevent a state with a surplus of some good (wheat, for example) from declaring that everyone must now accept that good as payment regardless of any previously agreed terms and, in effect, avoiding paying the full amount that it owes. As the federal government did going off the gold standard and making USD legal tender.

Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]

#89

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 10:02 PM UTC

spywaregorilla wrote: post #11

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Guess 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.

I don't believe you're obligated to accept legal tender for goods or services

Downvoted, but correct.

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.

Re: Arizona Introduces a bill to make Bitcoin Legal Tender [pdf]

#90

Post by posterboy » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 10:04 PM UTC

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #84

posterboy wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another comment argued with sources that this is not entailed, because businesses can choose to decline electronic cash already. I have heared that Disneyland is crazy like that and EC is virtually ubiquitious, but that's not the norm. Conversely, you don't expect to pay with a 500 everywhere (if you have that, EU phased it out recently)

Again, you're confused about what "legal tender" is. It is up to sellers to decide what form of payment they accept. It is perfectly legal for a seller to accept only a form of electronic payment, or only certain sizes of bank notes, or payment in bitcoin or blueberries or bubblegum. This is all totally fine and has nothing at all to do with the concept of legal tender. Legal tender is simply what kind of payment mus…

You are commiting an etymological fallacy. What counts first of all is what legal tender has been in name when the constitution was written. Second, the meaning of the word when the bill was written may have reasonably changed and it may still be sensible. If this is warranted, because the state has the power to mint gold coins, they can peg the gold coin to the bitcoin, if you want to see it that way.

This is illusory of course and there might be regulations in place to prohibit this, and there might be no other ways around it.

Still, this isn't simply simple and you are selling it short.