It is kind of correct that such similar was meaning, noting that more and more was piled on to the term with time. What those genuinely interested need to know is the power of those two little words in international trade agreements.

Take UNCITRAL CISG Art (2) as an example: "A further nuance arises, however, in relation to a particular sub-category of cryptocurrencies: those issued by central banks. Though cryptocurrency fungibility is assumed by some existing literature, not all cryptocurrencies are alike. Central bank digital currencies (‘CBDC’s’) differ from other cryptocurrencies in one critical respect for CISG article 2(d)’s purposes: they have State backing, and also constitute legal tender in their issuing State for that reason. Though CBDC’s are not yet common, some States are ‘dabbling’ in this area, and China in particular has taken significant steps towards launching its digital yuan. If CISG article 2(d) is read as referring to State-issued money, CBDC trade (as one particular type of cryptocurrency trade) would actually be excluded from the CISG’s scope.

At first glance, the CISG’s differing application to these two types of cryptocurrencies might appear artificial. It must nevertheless be kept in mind that although CBDC’s have no physical representation via notes and coins, traditional State-issued money is often transacted electronically in any event: even more so during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analogising CBDC’s with traditional State-issued money, for CISG article 2(d)’s purposes, therefore has at least some practical basis.

Differentiating CBDC’s from other cryptocurrencies for the purposes of the CISG’s application is not dissimilar to the existing distinction between equivalent traditional and digital goods that has plagued sales laws around the world and that I otherwise remedy (in the CISG context) in this article. This particular CBDC problem arguably reflects the law’s overall ‘nascent’ ability to deal with cryptocurrencies."

It's you who is the "fucking statist moron". Because legal tender laws are "fucking statist" in their nature.

So true bitcoiners actually do not support legal tender laws. Clearly that's not you imbecile retard who simps to states.

The challenge was - and ES solved that Gordonic know perfectly in a sly way - to name it "legal" tender. Of course imbecile statist retards like you and likely the IMF people don't grok that.

Again: Piss off and don't ever talk to me again. Go to some playground to the other imbecile retards.

It's you who is the "fucking moron", mate. And you sadly lack manners, every time I see you self-important clown.

The true significance for Bitcoin being called "legal tender" has nothing to do with anything what you write. That's all government stuff, for those who love that the government can just force people to do as it pleases by violence.

This wording is all about some legal consequences which it has in certain international accords. Takes a knowledge which you lack even more than manners or intelligence.

Piss off and don't ever talk to me again. Go to some playground for imbecile retards.

That is very interesting. Since Heckscher wrote this in 2021, was he perhaps one of the "one or two very good economists in Sweden" mentioned by F.A. Hayek below?

If yes, I'd be most interested in more detail to the following episode. It is actually quite a crucial matter for the monetisation of Bitcoin.

“During World War I the great paper money inflation in all the belligerent countries brought down not only the value of paper money but also the value of gold, because paper money was in the large measure substituted for gold, and the demand for gold fell. In consequence, the value of gold fell and prices in gold rose all over the world.

That affected even the neutral countries. Particularly Sweden was greatly worried: because it had stuck to the gold standard, it was flooded by gold from all the rest of the world that moved to Sweden which had retained its gold standard; and Swedish prices rose quite as much as prices in the rest of the world.

Now, Sweden also happened to have one or two very good economists at the time, and they repeated the advice which the Austrian economists had given concerning the silver in the 1870s, “Stop the free coinage of gold and the value of your existing gold coins will rise above the value of the gold which it contains.

The Swedish government did so in 1916 and what happened was again exactly what the economists had predicted: the value of the gold coins began to float above the value of its gold content and Sweden, for the rest of the war, escaped the effects of the gold inflation.”

"A Free-Market Monetary System" (1977) Friedrich A. Hayek

The missing part is a "credit money" layer not just credit. Drafts issued against value given, not just a simple promissory notes. Negotiable credit is a very different thing to credit money. Why the interest?

It is correct that IOU's can be abused, like many other things.

However, it is foolish to deny their positive use as instruments of credit facilitating division of labour in modern economies.

Credit in real goods is what powers capitalistic production and supply chains for consumers' real world lives. We cannot eat bitcoin. Or gold for that matter.

On 'cheating': Cheating banks and trusting fools will always be punished, usually within a few years of less. Honest banks persisted in the past for hundreds of years. Only the government has the power to cheat unpunished and force their 'licensed' (enslaved) banks to cheat through regulation.

Yes, that is correct.

The basic credit money instrument is a best a draft or a promissory note. It must be issued against value given to be 'credit money' else it is inflationary 'fiduciary media'.

The OP explains (hopefully) that money is a construct and system.

Until the system is complete, including the credit money layer, Bitcoin is a commodity, no more no less, and what we are doing is barter.

PS: Government or what it says does not come in. Austrian Economics demonstrates by logic that it does not need the government to make a money. Government can and will fuck up liberty money, though, if they find any angle to do so.

So, with Bitcoin, it has beed extremely hard for them so far to fuck up the base money layer. And Bitcredit Protocol hopefully is similarly good at keeping them off the credit money layer. We will see.

Q: Since when they are not? Who decided that? A: Take your pick: 1913/14 or 1933. See chart.

Q: Can Bitcoin be money? It can be. To get there, we must get the credit money layer right.

They can be. They were. They are not.

Indeed it is not. That's why the chapter is titled "A world without money".

I would like to add: a commodity is also not money.

A goat is a goat is a goat.

Same for shells, fish, grain, salt, gold, and bitcoin.

It says in the first Chapter that this is required to remove fiat, showing the Greek example. Care to read before inventing rubbish?

Kind of. Hoarding and saving should not be conflated, that's all.

My exact words. That's why the missing part is being built on Bitcoin, adhering to the relevant principles of bitcoin: decentralised, verifiable, non-custodial, censorship resistant.

When talking about the FUTURE of Bitcoin, consider it monetised. The game will have changed fundamentally.

The exchange value of Bitcoin will be naturally stable. There will be no expectation of profit by holding it outright (hoarding) beyond liquidity needs, because of opportunity cost, as it could have been saved and loaned out profitably.

"Use it as money" will mean you will keep as much liquid as you expect to use for upcoming spending.

Q: it's trying to build digital negotiable instruments using Bitcoin? A: Correct. Commercial bills (ebills) monetise 'real credit'. That's needed for goods to flow and is currently non-existent in Bitcoin, making it impossible to use for the real economy.

Q: Aren't Bitcoin negotiable instruments already perfectly doable? A: Bitcoin is a negotiable 'commodity'. A 'negotiable payment instrument' is something very different: a claim to future money (can be Bitcoin) which is freely transferrable by bearer.

Q: Is the novelty here just adapting to MLETR. A: Not a novelty, just digitalisation. Worked like a charm for centuries before fiat money. These are a 'raw material' for the production of the credit money needed for trade and industry. (See article.)

Clearer?

Q: "really make it difficult to understand with no details in public." A: These chapters are the effort to make it easy to understand. Follow and have patience, it will all be explained in time before it's switched on next year.

PS: And thanks for genuine questions, it helps the project to learn what needs explaining.

Thanks for the friendly reception.

Thanks.