pull down to refresh

I wrote a post a while back, on what "mainstream media" was saying about this order, back in 1933. Very interesting stuff.
Bottom line - mainstream media was entirely on board. Completely. Scarily. And it wasn't "people who owned gold". It was "hoarders".
reply
Great research: it does seem like the govt had trouble actually forcing anyone who refused to surrender gold.
Lesson1: @DarthCoin is right - do not comply.
Lesson2: they won't ask you for it if they don't know you have it.
Lesson3: it's easy to get the masses on the side of taking money from other people.
reply
Compliance Is Defiance®
reply
Missed this one. Thanks for putting the link here! Very curious to see what you found.
reply
Is not weird that almost in the same day we have the 4th halving?
reply
Would you support a 6102 if it meant price would increase and you would receive a token for your confiscated BTC? This might be a very good outcome and help price increase.
The Price Is Bitcoin Is What Matters®
reply
Compliant ecash
reply
1 BTC = 1BTC
My good friends: I just had a look at your very nice website. Kaufman smiles down benevolently upon you. I look forward to following your adventures.
Hadn't realized that about 2016 epoch length.
Also he listed his birthday as April 5.
Confiscation was clearly on his mind.
reply
Also he listed his birthday as April 5.
Another supporting correlation to the 6102 thesis.
Any significance to the year 1975?
reply
That's a nice correlation.
reply
I've always loved this. Same for his birthday today; Happy Birthday Satoshi
reply
reply
28 sats \ 2 replies \ @ez 5 Apr
funny (or actually not funny at all) that all things considered it fixed nothing and economy only started to recover post WW2
reply
Confiscating people's wealth would not on the surface appear to be a great way to pull an economy out of a nosedive...
reply
28 sats \ 0 replies \ @ez 5 Apr
yet all the mainstream econ bots are trumpeting this as a great triumph of modern fiat economy
reply
Proving one's holding gold was easier. Can anyone prove someone else owning bitcoin?
reply
What would you do if they did this for bitcoin today?
a even better signal to stack more:) and I'm not under their jurisdictions.
reply
Valid answer: be somewhere else
reply
fight or flight - flight usually easier and less unwanted dramas.
reply
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @kytt 6 Apr
And yet, this EO did not apply to regular men and women - only commercial entities. It says so, although sneakily, in the EO itself.
reply
executive order 6102
Difficulty in Bitcoin is updated every 2016 blocks.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Bitcoin is the opposite of what happened in 1933.
reply
I just want to say that government can pass such orders anytime, it's true.
But government can't implement it on Bitcoin, it's also true.
reply
There's an important difference, since gold was the legal tender of the day. This was a scam to devalue from $20/ounce to $35/ounce. Unless, there were a peg to bitcoin, I don't see why this would happen.
What's much more likely to me is some sort of civil asset forfeiture order for bitcoin suspected to have been used during the commission of a crime.
That said, I will continue to maintain that I don't have any bitcoin, which is exactly what I would have done in 1933.
reply
50 sats \ 12 replies \ @Lux 5 Apr
gold was never legal tender it can't be used to discharge debts
reply
Yes it was. The dollar was defined as a weight of gold. The constitution states explicitly that only gold and silver are legal tender.
reply
5 sats \ 10 replies \ @Lux 5 Apr
the constitution says "no state shall make money other than gold or silver coin", not legal tender
reply
When America was on a gold standard, and gold was money, gold was used to discharge debts. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
reply
there's a difference between paying and discharging money can pay when there's no money in the system it can only be discharged
reply
ok, this doesn't seem very important
From investopedia:
Legal tender is anything recognized by law as a means to settle a public or private debt or meet a financial obligation
That's what gold was
reply
50 sats \ 6 replies \ @Lux 5 Apr
this doesn't seem very important
it makes all the difference.
a discharge doesn't cancel the debt, it just removes the charge, and for any practical purpose in a fiat system, the debt is settled. but, lawfully speaking, it's not payed, there was no exchange of a tangible asset
we both get that fiat is a scam legal tender vs lawful money you should know the diff between legal and lawful
I could also see what is sort already happening in the EU: requiring bitcoin to be used only with custody providers to "prevent moneylaundering."
reply
I'm a little surprised we don't have that already.
There's probably some safety that comes with the ETF's. Hurting bitcoin will hurt Wall Street now, so there will be a reluctance to do so.
reply
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @_vnprc 5 Apr
nice try, spook
reply
Excellent!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @MB 6 Apr
I don’t think any government would be able to do this now. Maybe I’m naive but the beauty of BTC is that this kind of thing is, I think, almost impossible. Governments may try but I can’t see them having much success.
reply
I can't surrender Gold yk anyone, It's doing ATHs everyday. Being a woman, I have special rights for holding Gold.
I also hold bitcoins. Governments cant find them.
reply
Spend it all through Lightning, acquire UTXO's, move to musig brain wallet 😉
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Lux 5 Apr
you got it wrong, lemme explain: First, it was not all gold, eg jewellery Second, it mentions only persons, not people. Persons are fictions of the law, personas, masks, corporations. The government has only jurisdiction over it's creations, the ens legis entity by wich you identify. If you know you are a living man, you just have to tell the truth and live it. The gov doesn't have jurisdiction over bitcoin, only over the ious they are pushing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD8ISiJfgW4 https://rumble.com/v4imjfl-define-person-rights-and-duties.html
reply
reply
💎
reply
reply
the "hack" is to tell officials you are the user (or beneficiary) of the person, not the person itself, wich would make a joinder and make you the trustee. it's called a reverse trust scam