https://bitcoinscoresby.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/6102.jpeg
Order was issued on April 5, 1933. People had to deliver their gold to the govt by May 1, 1933.
Punishment: $10,000 fine or 10 years prison or both.
What would you do if they did this for bitcoin today?
Is not weird that almost in the same day we have the 4th halving?
https://i.postimg.cc/6QfwLfhG/vader-2016.jpg
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®
Compliant ecash
1 BTC = 1BTCMy 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.
Another supporting correlation to the 6102 thesis.
Any significance to the year 1975?
That's a nice correlation.
I've always loved this. Same for his birthday today; Happy Birthday Satoshi
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".
Gold "hoarders" were persecuted in the 1930's, what will happen with bitcoin?
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.
Compliance Is Defiance®
Missed this one. Thanks for putting the link here! Very curious to see what you found.
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.
gold was never legal tender
it can't be used to discharge debts
Yes it was. The dollar was defined as a weight of gold. The constitution states explicitly that only gold and silver are legal tender.
the constitution says "no state shall make money other than gold or silver coin", not legal tender
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.
there's a difference between paying and discharging
money can pay
when there's no money in the system it can only be discharged
ok, this doesn't seem very important
From investopedia:
That's what gold was
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."
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.
https://m.stacker.news/25358
funny (or actually not funny at all) that all things considered it fixed nothing and economy only started to recover post WW2
Confiscating people's wealth would not on the surface appear to be a great way to pull an economy out of a nosedive...
yet all the mainstream econ bots are trumpeting this as a great triumph of modern fiat economy
a even better signal to stack more:) and I'm not under their jurisdictions.
Valid answer: be somewhere else
fight or flight - flight usually easier and less unwanted dramas.
Proving one's holding gold was easier. Can anyone prove someone else owning bitcoin?
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
https://m.stacker.news/25346
https://m.stacker.news/25347
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
💎
And yet, this EO did not apply to regular men and women - only commercial entities. It says so, although sneakily, in the EO itself.
Difficulty in Bitcoin is updated every 2016 blocks.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Bitcoin is the opposite of what happened in 1933.
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.
nice try, spook
Excellent!
https://m.stacker.news/25351
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.
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.
Spend it all through Lightning, acquire UTXO's, move to musig brain wallet 😉