Golden Oldies #22 \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

975 sats \ 9 comments \ @siggy47 3 Dec meta

What Is This?

This is a recurring post inspired by discussions had by @Undisciplined, @elvismercury and others regarding evergreen content on SN. I’ll dig back into the past to try to locate some great posts that might be worth another read. I plan to release a new Golden Oldies every Tuesday.

Here are this week’s selections:

Gold "hoarders" were persecuted in the 1930's, what will happen with bitcoin? by @Signal312

I thought this was an appropriate time to feature a post about the US gold ban of the 1930s. I have seen a lot of talk about Executive Order 6102, and some disagreement as to how strictly it was enforced. With the recent discussions about government involvement with bitcoin and the importance of self custody, I thought that now would be a good time to look back at this period.

Evaluating my bitcoin privacy techniques against three surveillance attacks by @supertestnet

This is a superb post by @supertestnet. If you’re concerned about the privacy of your transactions, and you should be, you can learn a lot right here.

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Here’s a link to last week’s post:

#783442

Logo design by @plebpoet

view all related items

113 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 3 Dec

Am I off-base in thinking 6102 style attacks aren't that relevant to bitcoin? That attack worked because America was on a gold standard.

Wouldn't civil asset forfeiture be the better analogue, as well as being a tactic that is actually used fairly often?

6 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 3 Dec

I would agree that asset forfeiture would be more analogous.

5 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 3 Dec

6102 probably matters for custodial bitcoin if the US wants to back USD with bitcoin

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 3 Dec

I don't think 6102 is relevant unless we're on an actual bitcoin standard: as in 1 dollar = x btc by law.

29 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 3 Dec

Isn't the executive order just about not being allowed to own bitcoin anymore? Do they need a reason for that?

33 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 3 Dec

Technically, no, but the point wasn't getting the gold. The point was devaluing the dollar. They gathered up all the physical gold and then changed the peg.

Now, they can devalue the dollar much more easily.

76 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 3 Dec

@Signal312's post is a few days newer than my sn account and I had never read it. It has good analogies and I enjoyed reading it, thanks for sharing. I also liked @Lux's comment.

It's not about privacy, it's about knowing how to exercise your rights. The order applies only to persons, not to living men. You either govern yourself or someone else will.

64 sats \ 1 reply \ @plebpoet 3 Dec

hi @supertestnet !

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @supertestnet 3 Dec

Hi!