Talk:Legality of bitcoin by country or territory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Legal restrictions generally apply to all cryptocurrencies[edit]

In most (if not all) countries, the legal restrictions or endorsements apply to all cryptocurrencies, not to Bitcoin specifically. Therefore, the article should be renamed Legal status of cryptocurrencies. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's 2018, we agree with this suggestion. We recommend retitling this to CryptoLaw ( altogether. Viapastrengo (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove "Legal?" column?[edit]

The column "Legal?" doesn't explain what that term means, so the "Yes", "No", or "Restricted" answers are vague and pretty arbitrary. For example, the US says "Yes" while India says "Restricted" for a pretty similar policies, and the only "No" is for Iceland which seems extremely dubiously applied, since they restrict only foreign trade of bitcoins.

I'd suggest removing the column. An alternative would be to add a clear definition of what it means, or to replace it with different columns with specific descriptions, for example:

  • Trade laws? Whether a central government or representative of the government has issued laws or guidance on laws that specifically mention Bitcoin or similar cryptocurrencies (e.g., when a government says an existing money transfer laws requires deal brokers to maintain client identity records).
  • Tax laws? Whether a government has issued laws or guidance that specifically mention Bitcoin or similar cryptocurrencies with respect to tax laws in the country.
  • Advice? Whether a central government or has issued non-binding advice to the public (e.g., when a central bank warns consumers that Bitcoin is volatile and may be a scam).

For the most part though, information on a particular country seems best handled with a short paragraph. Most countries for which this list cites sources have said little, with none of it binding; most commonly it is just to say that they don't consider bitcoin to be legal tender or "money".

––Agyle (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. "Restricted" is a very vague word. Any country which taxes or otherwise regulates bitcoin is clearly restricting its use, similar to how the US dollar has use restricted in the US. Agyle's suggestions would be a significant improvement, I think.— (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Agyle, your comments are still true, as of today, more than 1 year later, as is Roadrunner´s flag pointing out factual inaccuracies. the short paragraphs arent uptodate and sometimes uncited. Jorge Stolfi´s suggestion of using the term undefined (see below) is a good one too. This article just doesnt get the same traffic and scrutiny as Bitcoin, and discussions appear not to exist... At the same time an editor on Bitcoin that you well know, has just removed 90% of its carefully grown legality section ( mind you , good article status now), without parsing the facts and refs to paste them into this little page here.--Wuerzele (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Support I agree with the proposal to remove the "Legal?" column per the reasons listed by Agyle. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Added disputed tag[edit]

I've seen this diagram in various places, and I wanted to add a factual disputed tag since this diagram seems to be spreading a lot of misinformation. Specfically, the Chinese authorities have restricted the ability of banks to do bitcoin business, but the restrictions on bitcoin usage aren't different from the ones that are being imposed by authorities on other banks. Chinese banks work on a "black list" (do not do these businesses) whereas banks in other places operate on a white list (you have to have specific authority to do these businesses). So Chinese banking officials have to specifically say "don't do business in bitcoin" whereas most other countries just withhold authority.

I don't think it is possible to create a chart that says "legal/illegal". The question is "legal/illegal" for what, and even then you have to figure out how each countries banking laws work. For example, it would be illegal right now for a US commercial bank to trade bitcoin (or socks or concrete), because they need specific permission from the US banking authorities to do so.Roadrunner (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and suggested getting rid of the "legal?" column above this on the Talk page, but there were no replies. I think the list is a very useful overview of government and regulatory positions regarding bitcoins, but trying to reduce it to legal/illegal is arbitrary and I think falls under Wikipedia's original research prohibition. It's simply too subjective to be verifiable through independent sources, especially when the term isn't explained at all. Agyle (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Should distinguish "legal" from "undefined"[edit]

The legal status of cryptocurrencies in many countries is best described as "undecided": while not explicitly prohibited, they are not explicitly allowed either, and have no clear legal status. In the US, for example, the IRS and the FTC view cryptocurrencies as valuable property, the USMS has conducted an auction of seized bitcoins; but there is still no regulation on their use, and regulation that is being proposed may impeded some of their current uses. By the way, the USMS explicitly said in that auction's manifesto that "The USMS does not make any representations or warranties regarding Bitcoin."[1] --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"It is illegal in only three countries: Russia, Vietnam, and Iceland"[edit]

I believe, Russia should be out of this list. The Ministry of Finance announced proposals to ban the issuance of bitcoin and any operations involving cryptocurrency. But it is not approved yet, so in fact bitcoin in Russia is in "grey" zone rather than in "black". Sr.ganador (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the truth, it's in the citation and so shouldn't be changed. But do please add to the "notes" section of the chart and the prose section further down the page as well. Fleetham (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


I checked the citation: there is nothing about Bangladesh there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr.ganador (talkcontribs) 03:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a look. This page is in pretty poor shape, so I'm not surprised. I do believe bitcoin is banned in Bangladesh, but we might need a new source here. Fleetham (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing entries from chart[edit]

I think it's best to remove country entries from the legality chart if there isn't concrete information about the legal status in that nation. While it's easy to say, "bitcoin is clearly legal unless someone says otherwise," some countries, such as Russia I believe, have existing laws that apply to and prohibit bitcoin such as bans on private currencies. Also, including countries that have yet to "weigh in" with regulation or bans may mean that the article quickly becomes out of date and provides unreliable info. Fleetham (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of taxation[edit]

I think it's best to remove most references to income generated using bitcoin being taxable... this should be quite obvious. Also, the fact that some tax authority stated, "yes, we will tax your bitcoins" is in no way an endorsement of bitcoin being legal in that jurisdiction. For example, in the US, you're supposed to declare illegal income per the IRS, which states, "income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income." Fleetham (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thailand myth[edit]

The claim that Bitcoin is/was illegal in Thailand, perpetuated in the article's table and lede, is a myth. Its origin is a blog post by a specific Bitcoin company in Thailand -, which was then misleadingly reported in various sources. It might be a fabrication, but even if we believe their report on what was told to them in private, there was no official public statement at the time. Furthermore, the Bank of Thailand does not have the authority to declare Bitcoin illegal.

I'm inclined to correct these errors in the article. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

go for it.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

edit related to India[edit]

after quite some contemplation I have [reverted] an India related edit, because I dont think it is valuable and I do not trust it was good faith for a first-time editor. I've looked at the 46 page document by Nishith Desai Associates, that the user referenced. by not even pointing to the respective page this forces a tax-law-office-blah-blah down the reader's throat.

I ve asked Goenkas to find a WP:reliable source for the edit, like from the Reserve Bank of India or whatever applies.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"a bill explicitly banning bitcoins is due to become law in Russia"[edit]

In my opinion, this formulation violates the WP:BALL policy. The source does confirm that a russian official promised such an event, but it also confirms that another official source, Russia’s Ministry of Economic Development, expressed a different, opposite opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


The techinasia source cited to confirm that bitcoin is "illegal in Indonesia" cites another source for its findings, namely dailysocial, which observably confuses the statement that bitcoin is "not a legal tender in Indonesia" with a statement that bitcoin is "illegal in Indonesia". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

that Tech in Asia source clearly doesn't do what you say it does, and I'd encourage you to read it. Fleetham (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
"that Tech in Asia source clearly doesn't do what you say it does" - to verify, see the statement: "Source: DailySocial" below the article text. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Read the first sentence. The Dailysocial source cites an entirely different claim than "illegal in Indonesia." Fleetham (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I (surprisingly for you, as it looks from your above words) read the first sentence, as I did the whole article. Please don't push me to do something I have done. Much more of the DailySocial article is cited than just the contents of the first sentence, as an attentious reader can find out comparing the texts, and as the "Source: DailySocial" text below the article unequivocally indicates. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you appear to be correct. I am surprised that the Tech in Asia source is simply a copy/paste especially because it only marks one claim as being "according to Dailysocial." In my mind, "Source: Dailysocial" doesn't equate to "I plagiarized Dailysocial," but it looks like perhaps myself and the Tech in Asia author differ on that point. Anyway, we have two other sources or an Indonesian bitcoin ban. Reuters states, "Indonesia has become the latest country... to ban the use of the Bitcoin virtual currency", and according to a Yahoo Singapore headline, "Bank Indonesia declares Bitcoin as illegal currency". Fleetham (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems we are in agreement that the Bank Indonesia expressed that bitcoin is not "legal tender in Indonesia". We are also in agreement that this prompted several media to report that the Bank Indonesia expressed that bitcoin is "illegal currency". This, however, as I mentioned above, is a misinterpretation of the original statement. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In Indonesia, bitcoin is not banned and is not illegal. Bitcoin Exchange in Indonesia ( has been listed as top 15 bitcoin exchange in the world. Base on Indonesia Central Bank, Bitcoin is not legal tender but it allow anyone to use it under their own risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funchiestz (talkcontribs) 08:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed. As I said above, the fact that bitcoin is not a legal tender in Indonesia does not make it "illegal". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The use of "Discouraged" in the "Legal?" column[edit]

Whether the use of bitcoin has been "discouraged" or not is irrelevant for legality. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant because if demonstrates the stance authorities take in regards to the cryptocurrency. Bitcoin ends up banned in places where the authorities take issue with it, and by issuing warnings about bitcoin, authorities are revealing that they don't like it. Laws are normative judgments made by a state backed by an enforcement mechanism to ensure obedience, and when a government issues a warning about bitcoin that's a normative judgment made by a state. In this way, I don't think mentioning the fact that a warning has been made is irrelevant. Why not change the legal status section to "yes," and add a note that the country in question has released a formal statement discouraging use of bitcoins? Fleetham (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 'Why not change the legal status section to "yes," and add a note that the country in question has released a formal statement discouraging use of bitcoins?' - thanks, that is the solution I support. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for a year of overhauling /maintaining this page, suggestions[edit]

Fleetham and Ladislav Mecir, thank you for your persistent, and may I say, harmonious ? work on this page ! I think it is in much better shape than one year ago, and clearly because of your input. Not being an active editor on this page, I want to ask your permission, knowing how particular you can be with bold edits :-) to take the present box warning down:

  • Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (January 2014)
  • This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (May 2014)

Of course there are (always) details to fix, but in general this article's listed sources are reliable and its factual accuracy is not disputed, has not been disputed on this talk page or elsewhere as far as I can see.

If anything, I find the lede is not in sync with the body, containing stuff that should go into the body, which needs a new section on "legality" IMO. it would deserve {{lede}}, however the lede is easy to fix, you are active on this page and now you know.

Your thoughts? Again thanks! barnstars are on their way...--Wuerzele (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • First of all, thank you for your kind words.
  • My idea of improvement is that there are references that should use templates.
  • Luxembourg CSSF communication can be used as source instead of the legal firm web referring to the communication.
  • The removal of the Legal? column still looks as a good and consensual idea, since there is the problem of meaning. If meaning "Legal tender?" as some of the rows suggest, then there is currently no state where it would be a legal tender, i.e., it would have to be "no" for every row. This, however, does not look like the intended meaning of the column. You seem to agree with the above proposal by Agyle to remove the column.
  • See also the consensual discussion in the above "Indonesia" section.
  • On the other hand, I do not object against the changes you propose. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yet another idea: In the lead section, there is a statement: "Steven Strauss, a Harvard public policy professor, suggested that governments could outlaw bitcoin in April 2013, and this possibility was mentioned again in a July 2013 regulatory filing made by a bitcoin investment vehicle." While most certainly true (almost every statement saying that something is possible in the future is most certainly true), it violates the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, especially the part stating: "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", which is not the case of the statement mentioning the event only as a possibility.Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir sorry, i wasnt watching, busy on the arbcom GMO case, and now, someone reverting reliable source addition invited me to BLP ANI.
Re templated references: I do not think they are necessary. I used to be in that camp but since editing many more sites found that, if one gets the order of a ref right, one doesnt have to and it is equally acceptable. I once argued with an experienced wikipedian who convinced me. its in my talkpage archive, wait.-- found it here.
Re removing the legal column: I want to hear from Fleetham, he hasnt responded.
Re Strauss sentence: that is one sentence worth taking out, although somehow, it has become like a historical mile stone, weathering more and more, moss growing over it, kind of funny looking as I've gotten used to it. do you know what i mean? again, I want to hear from Fleetham because i know its dear to him, he introduced that sentence.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I maintain that the "Legal?" column is actually ripe for deletion, since it is unclear what its meaning should be. Therefore, it is actually a collection of subjective opinions of editors, i.e., a WP:OR. Also, checking the discussion, it is clear that there is a consensus on its deletion.
As for the statement "dear to Fleetham": - If seen as forecasting some future events, it is not correct to keep it, since the events are only deemed "possible", and that is the case that the WP:CRYSTALBALL mentions. If seen as an "already fulfilled forecast", then it is superseded by the information stating that there are countries that banned bitcoin, which is much more convincing than the information that such an event could occur.Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Ladislav, ok lets wait until fleetham is back online, no WP:urgency. he hasnt edited since the 19th. if he is back and doesnt edit here it is a silent agreement in my view. thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Strauss sentence, removal of Legal? column[edit]

In reply, I'm not sure I'm convinced removing the Strauss quote is the best course of action, and I fail to see how it's possible to use CRYSTALBALL as reason to remove it, a rule designed to stop people adding future predictions to Wikipedia. If Strauss would have run afoul of that rule in the past, he certainly can't now because a half dozen nations explicitly ban bitcoin. Modifying the existing text to resolve your concern is likely better than outright removal. And on the issue of the "legal?" column, that sounds a bit too much like POV pushing... I'm certainly not casting aspersions when I say you, Mecir, are pro-bitcoin, but it seems a little strange that it would somehow not be okay to list those nations with bitcoin bans on page titled "legality of bitcoin," ostensibly a reference for those seeking an answer to the question "is bitcoin legal?" Fleetham (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
If it is useful to keep a forecast in the lead section, then what exactly does it forecast? If it is the information that something is possible, then it violates the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy stating that the event must be almost certain to take place and not merely possible as the Strauss' forecast mentions. Also, if fulfilled, then the fact that some nations banned bitcoin is the information that is present in the lead and there is no need to forecast a possibility of such an event happening. No matter how dear is mr. Strauss to anybody's heart.
Fleetham: 'And on the issue of the "legal?" column, that sounds a bit too much like POV pushing... I'm certainly not casting aspersions when I say you, Mecir, are pro-bitcoin, but it seems a little strange that it would somehow not be okay to list those nations with bitcoin bans on page titled "legality of bitcoin," ostensibly a reference for those seeking an answer to the question "is bitcoin legal?"' - I have got several notes to this statement:
  • The "Legal?" column seems too much like WP:OR, because:
    • It is unclear what the meaning of the column should be, in other words, the meaning of the "Yes/No" in there is undefined. As mentioned above, if it means the same as "Legal tender?", then the answer is "No", for all countries, because bitcoin is not a legal tender in any country. For example, the Argentina "Status" mentions that in there, bitcoin "can be considered money, but not legal currency" (the meaning of the "not legal currecy" is explained further in the source; it means that it is not a legal tender in there), while the "Legal?" column entry says "Yes". On the other hand, the "Indonesia" entry says "No", while the reason is that the Bank Indonesia stated that bitcoin is not a legal currency in there, i.e., actually, the Bank Indonesia stated that bitcoin has the same legal status as in Argentina.
    • The "Legal?" column "Yes/No/whatever" entries are not citations of reliable sources, but creative interpretations of the contents of the sources made by the editors depending on their understanding what the meaning of the column should be.
    • The discussion on the removal of the "Legal?" column was held some time ago, and I see a consensus in there to remove the column.
  • In reaction to "I'm certainly not casting aspersions when I say you, Mecir, are pro-bitcoin" - well, I remember that you, Fleetham, casted all other editors of the article except for you as "pro-bitcoin". To remain short and to the point, I consider such a cast subjective and irrelevant to this discussion.
  • As to the problem of people seeking an information on the legal status of bitcoin in specific countries: I find it relevant to give such an information to the reader. That is why I am filling in such an information to the "Status" column of the table. As opposed to the "Legal?" column "Yes/No" contents, the "Status" information is not based on interpretation, but on citations of reliable sources, and once I finish the filling-in, the need will be fulfilled, and the reader will be able to find reliable status information in the table. Hope this addresses all the issues discussed in the statement. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well as a compromise how about keeping an easily referenced list like the one the article has now but instead of a legal/illegal dichotomy we briefly summarize the extent to which it is illegal? I mean, is simply holding bitcoins illegal or is transacting with them illegal or is using bitcoins as an intermediary step when converting local currency to USD the actual thing that is illegal. Is that understandable and a good compromise? Fleetham (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I see what you are getting at Fleetham, and I welcome the idea of keeping some first-glance usability of the list = "summarize the extent to which it is illegal".
Ladislav Mecir Thanks for filling info in the status column. I agree with sourced info as you know. but I also agree with Fleetham that having something like the color code that shows at least nuances of legality at first glance is useful. the map didnt work, but the columns could. right now its a wall of words. please stop making more changes, as I said there is no urgency, until we've hashed this out. I dont like that you reference to a consensus thats months old and immediately now all of a sudden act. I understand why you reverted the "definition" section I started, but its short sighted because we will need one like that, you could have added {{cn}} to it or looked for sources. the article is not a list and it needs a definition of legality of bitcoin.
(what have I done? I came here to concongratulate, remove one flag, and now that !) -:)--Wuerzele (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele: "I dont like that you reference to a consensus thats months old and immediately act" - You may not have noticed, but that is self-contradictory. Indeed, the consensus is months old, and I waited many months to have some spare time to make the changes. I do not think that your "congratulation" can classify as "stop doing anything you plan to do for months with the article", and, I do not think it would be reasonable to expect that. BTW, why "Laegal?", when the original name of the column was "Legal?"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ladislav yes, my contradiction is hilarious! i should have written: You probably should have acted then... ok, you ve acted now. i am sorry, i couldnt get across my point. I will "correct " my statement.
I stick by my notion that something like the color code would be good. more i cant say. sorry. it seems to me you focused on the fact that "please stop". I'll stop myself. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
my congratulation meant no harm and no instrumentalization for any advantage. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the purportedly compromising introduction of a set of color-coded columns: I can imagine that some editor takes the legal state in a certain country (e.g. the U.S.) as an example and lists some legal properties as column names. The problem is that in other countries the legal state can be, and usually is, incompatible, so the column names may not be applicable to them. Unless seeing a consistent plan how this would be done, I am afraid that my blank agreement with such an approach could end up with personal judgments of editors, a.k.a. WP:OR in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
yes, it is complicated, one cant take ONE legal characteristic, which is why I was vague (...something like). just toss the idea in your head a bit more. you and I have transcended problems with mental images before at Bitcoin once, then at virtual currency. you've always improved on my ideas, and made it reality that stuck. i'll take the page off my watchlist, as my input is not needed or appreciated, but if you want to reply, please ping me. thank you!--Wuerzele (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

On alt-coins, blockchains, and code itself[edit]

Pacerier (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC): ❝

Much of the information on this article seem to deal only with transactions done using Bitcoin.
  1. What about transactions done using alt-coins?
  2. What about services ("non-transactional" services) that deal with Bitcoin and/or blockchains?
  3. What about the underlying technology that can be used to build cryptographically-enforced distributed databases like blockchains?
Are the three points above legal in all countries?

Extensive discusion of altcoins is off topic here, see the title of the article, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this article only deals with Bitcoin. Most government authorities only provide their opinions on Bitcoin on its legality as a form of payment/currency. So far, no legal opinions about alt-coins/blockchains has been issued by the governments. If you found any, you are welcome to create a separate article on legality of alt-coins/blockchains, but not on this article.Cerevisae (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Definition of legality[edit]

Wuerzele wrote this subsection discussing definition of bitcoin legality into the article:

Definition The Legality or legal status of bitcoin, as used in the sections below is an ambiguous summary term encompassing multiple aspects of bitcoin, such as mining, purchase, sale and stockmarket or other financial business transactions. Since such information is largely incomplete for most countries, legality with a "Yes" in the column "Legal?" needs to be qualified by and interpreted with the available sources. A no is unequivocal, however.

Unfortunately, there are several problematic aspects to it, and I do not think the text is suitable for inclusion into the article as is:

  • The definition is not supported by reliable sources.
  • The "no is unequivocal" part is missing the point. How can "no" be unequivocal when the question is equivocal? I brought some specific reasons above, but I think that Wuerzele may have missed them, so let me repeat: the Argentina "Status" mentions that in there, bitcoin "can be considered money, but not legal currency" (the meaning of the "not legal currecy" is explained further in the cited source: it means that it is not a legal tender in there), while the "Legal?" column entry said "yes". On the other hand, the "Indonesia" entry said "no", while the reason was that the Bank Indonesia stated that bitcoin is not a legal currency in there, i.e., actually, the Bank Indonesia stated that bitcoin has the same legal status in Indonesia as it has in Argentina. Moreover, bitcoin is not a legal tender (or, in other words, legal currency) in any country.

Maybe there is a way how to write a definition of legality and overcome these issues without introducing WP:OR into the article, but I did not find it yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thailand legal ststus[edit]

The information in this section is out of date and wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This is useless without more info, please explain what you believe is out of date and provide references. -- JonathanCross (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Request edit[edit]

As of October 2015, an article 78 was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York challenging the authority of the New York State Department of Financial Services to define Virtual Currency and that Bitcoin if not Currency.[1][2]The case is to be heard on March, 30 2017 by Judge Lucy Billings[3]. Since then, the NYDFS has issued few licenses.[4]

Theochino (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Michael del Castillo (2 November 2016). "BitLicense Critic Wages One-Man War". CoinDesk. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  2. ^ "Article 78 against NYDFS". Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  3. ^ "New York State Motion Calendar". New York State Supreme Court.
  4. ^ Suzanne Barlyn (31 October 2016). "New York's bitcoin hub dreams fade with licensing backlog". Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
Theochino, are you able to write a human-readable formulation that could be used instead of your "an article 78 was filed"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir; in New York State, it is called an article 78. Please familiarize yourself with the terms so in New York it is called an Article 78.

Theochino (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Theochino, are you able to write a human-readable formulation that could be used instead of your "...that Bitcoin if not Currency"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
So here is the language: "challenging the authority of the New York State Department of Financial Services to define Virtual Currency." We can stop the sentence there and go into citations.

Theochino (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion should be finished, and a consensus should be reached by the time the edit request template is placed. You should also make sure to disclose your connection to the subject in question. Edit request declined. Feel free to resubmit this request once the details have been finalized, and a consensus has been reached. Regards, VB00 (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
VB00, you can find the long ass dispute where the other person might also have a different COI andd not disclosing it? You can read my note here but consensus is not reachable as of right now. Theochino (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
VB00, so what is the process to bring an entry to reality ? How to invoke the board of editors to look and debate the issue ?Theochino (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
You said that you have already found the answer at Talk:Bitcoin#Requesting_edit_on_POV-Check, so I'll assume that you have invoked the same procedure here. Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates[edit]

I'd like to suggest adding the UAE. There have been interesting new developments. On 1 JAN 2017 the UAE's central bank published a wide-ranging regulation that appeared to outlaw bitcoin: "D.7.3. Provisions for Virtual Currencies. All Virtual Currencies (and any transactions thereof) are prohibited" Here's the link to the 1 JAN 2017 regulation

Then on 1 Feb 2017 the UAE central bank clarified its position: "In a statement to Gulf News clarifying the regulation, Mubarak Rashid Khamis Al Mansouri, Governor of the Central Bank, said: “these regulations do not cover ‘virtual currency’, which is defined as any type of digital unit used as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a form of stored value. In this context, these regulations do not apply to bitcoin or other crypto — currencies, currency exchanges, or underlying technology such as Blockchain.” Here's the link to the Gulf News article:

I do not know how to add this to the page. But I believe that with this clarification bitcoin is not legally an issue in the UAE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngjohn14 (talkcontribs) 12:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin is NOT banned in Russia[edit]

--Crossswords (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That article says bitcoin was not banned. An excerpt:

"A few things should be noted. Russia did not legally 'ban' Bitcoin.

The statement issued can be interpreted as a position of digital currencies relative to the legal framework. What it said can be understood as “bitcoin is not welcome”, as Russia to date has not taken any definitive steps toward implementing the ban.

Many media outlets reported on the 'ban,' but today you can still buy bitcoins in Russia without any issues."

Agyle (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


I see the following Errors:

  • In Vietnam, Bitcoin is not forbidden.
  • In Mexico, there seems to be no regulation in place
  • The map color for Bolivia does not match the textual status

Further sources:


I noticed you have no section for Cambodia.

Bitcoin is not considered currency, but is also not banned. Right now the bitcoin community in Cambodia is too small to warrant much government attention though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Status change for Russia.[edit]

Russian Deputy Finance Minister Aleksey Moiseev announced in September 2014 that strong legal restrictions in Bitcoin are coming. Noted this in article and changed Russia from green to yellow. The map should change, too; it's getting out of sync with the list. John Nagle (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Iceland status[edit]

The cited article about Iceland only discusses foreign exchange of Bitcoin in Iceland. (Here is a link through It doesn't address domestic use of the currency. Unless a source verifies that it cannot be used within the country, its status should be changed from illegal to restricted. Agyle (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This is quite late, but I agree. I updated it to restricted. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Jordan's legality[edit]

Aren't bitcoins now illegal in Jordan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I just added a section on Jordan, listing bitcoins as restricted. The Central Bank of Jordan "issued a circular to all banks operating in the Kingdom, currency exchange companies, financial companies and the payment service companies prohibiting them from dealing with virtual currencies, particularly in bitcoins." They also warned the public that bitcoins are risky, and not legal tender, but don't seem to prohibit their use.
Agyle (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


Now illegal: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talkcontribs) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding Vietnam status on map versus table[edit]

The table (last entry) says that Vietnam allows BTC, but the map on the top of the page displays Vietnam as being red (not allowed). My Photoshop skills are pretty bad, could someone update the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Complete list of missing countries[edit]

Disclaimer: Please sync this list with Legality of bitcoin by country or territory#Alphabetical index to classifications.

@Ladislav Mecir: Do you know if there's a good source that can be used for most countries? --David Hedlund SWE (Talk) 10:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, David Hedlund. I put in all information available to me. Also, I think that it makes sense to improve the article by adding information, but I do not think the template you used for that is adequate. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The position of the "Summary" section[edit]

Originally, and with a consensus of editors, the "Summary" section immediately followed the table of contents. David Hedlund moved it to the bottom, and I restored the WP:STATUSQUO by moving it to the original position. David Hedlund made an immediate edit to move it elsewhere again. To not start an edit war, I am asking, on behalf of David Hedlund, whether there is a consensus to move the section from its original position.

  • No as far as I am concerned, I think that the original position, immediately following the table of contents, was best for the reader who needed just the summary information. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think a summary should go at the top?? --Kieron (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: Please compare with the current revision. --David Hedlund SWE (Talk) 15:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I can accept it in this form. The "Taxable income" column looks problematic, though, not containing any useful information. I would like to know what is its purpose. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I came here to ask the same question about the "Taxable income" column. It contains no information other than that already mentioned in the previous column, and I suggest that it be removed. Whether bitcoin is taxable income will depend on how it was obtained, just as with other currencies. Dbfirs 16:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia[edit]

I've been informed by a Saudi friend that bitcoin has been declared illegal by the SAMA (Saudi monetary authority). Apparently only in Arabic so far. The middle east is not even on this list. Why? JuanTamad (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not on the list because you did not add it :-) There is already a "West Asia" section where you can add Saudi Arabia. Be sure you have quality citations. - JonathanCross (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


The article says:

 wherein it declared cryptocurrency exchanges are not allowed and cryptocurrency cannot be accepted as payment for goods and services.

But exchanges isn't regulated even if not endorsed [3.8.1]. The reference also says:

   Like the Namibia Dollar or the South African Rand, virtual currencies cannot be used to pay for goods and services in Namibia. For example, a local shop is not allowed to price or accept virtual currencies in exchange for goods and  services. Users of virtual currencies should therefore exercise caution when dealing in this type of currencies or when comparing it to e-money. [...] meaning that the user bears the responsibility and the entire risks for transacting in virtual currency. [3.8.6]

So I guess that maybe the status is ambiguous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pslacerda (talkcontribs) 02:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Pedro Sousa Lacerda (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Legal status vs Yes Legal[edit]

In this article, sometimes it appears as «legal status», sometimes it appears as «Yes Legal».

I assume that by «legal status» the article aims to define if Bitcoin is defined as a virtual currency or in another way, and which are the applicable taxes and regulations.

Anyway, I am not sure to understand what is meant by «Yes Legal», as usages are regulated sometime by law, sometimes by judges, sometimes by religion or philosophy.

The existence of some legislation neither mean it is authorized nor banned. Some law might authorized it partly or totally, while some others might prohibit it partly or totally.

In particular, dictionary give many different definitions of legal:

  • 1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law: legal papers.
  • 2.
    • a. Established or recognized by law: a legal right.
    • b. Authorized by law: the legal owner.
    • c. Established legally other than by statute, as by a judicial opinion: a legal authority.
  • 1. (Law) established by or founded upon law; lawful
  • 2. (Law) of or relating to law

Is this the legal owners of wikipedia advice who decided to say the reader he is allowed by Wikipedia to do Bitcoin speculation? So, what means «Yes Legal» here?

Anyway, as such status is subject to changed, it should be dated and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"usages are regulated sometime by law, sometimes by judges, sometimes by religion or philosophy" - This is only about laws. – JonathanCross (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legality of bitcoin by country or territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Map needs updating[edit]

Status should be changed to:

  • Algeria: red - illegal
  • Bangladesh: red - illegal
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina: green - legal
  • Cambodia: red - illegal
  • Chile: green - legal
  • Dominican Republic: grey - no info
  • Iceland: green - legal
  • Indonesia: yellow contentious (some restrictions on legal usage of bitcoin)
  • Jamaica: green - legal
  • Jordan: green - legal
  • Kazakhstan: grey - no info
  • Kyrgyzstan: red - illegal
  • Morocco: green - legal
  • Nepal: red - illegal
  • Nicaragua: green - legal
  • Nigeria: green - legal
  • Romania: green - legal
  • Syria: grey - no info listed
  • Thailand: green - legal

Please update if you see errors or omissions.

Ideally we should switch to SVG so the map is easy to update. Here is a good map to start with. – JonathanCross (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)