pull down to refresh

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.
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
reply
I appreciate the importance of legal vs lawful, I just don't think you're using the term "legal tender" right.
I'm open to persuasion, if you want to support your usage with some sort of evidence or argument.
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