https://youtu.be/tUTVVzcyy0Y?is=cZcQshnBDEX0O-e3

If I tell a banker I want to clear half his vault of gold and replace it with pictures, he'll probably kick me out and say, "Go home, boy. This is no place for children." But if I tell #bitcoin_core the same thing, they'll hire me for the development team. #bitcoin #bip110 #knots

The fungibility of #money, combined with the familiar nature of the jewelers' business, led to the transformation of banking—from a safekeeping relationship to a debt-based one. The question of how this change in legal relations occurred is posed by Powell: "When was the doctrine adopted that a banker is simply a debtor, and not a bailee, much less a trustee, of his clients' funds? What circumstances led to this change in his legal status and created an economic 'sport' that led to the degeneration of the financial system, immeasurably increasing its power? How did receipts and vouchers lose their connection with a specific deposit and come to refer only to the banker as a whole?" Changes occurred evolutionarily. In the 17th and 18th centuries, #bank customers went to court over fractional-reserve banking and the legal status of customer deposits. The courts almost always ruled that the banker was simply a debtor, not a bailee or trustee. Why? Primarily because the money or coins in custody lacked distinguishing features. This condition was a sine qua non in cases of theft or robbery: the courts believed that stolen property or goods must be identifiable. But the coins of a specific customer could not be identified. Thus, due to the natural fungibility of money, the banker could not be held liable as a bailee. The courts treated cases involving banks the same way they would any other cases involving fraud or theft; they simply did not see the special nature of cash deposits. As a result, “unpackaged and therefore unidentifiable coins were transferred for safekeeping, and the only course of action for the custodian to return the money was debt.” This problem was finally resolved in #England only in the early 19th century. Some depositors again questioned the traditional decisions of the English courts, arguing that "banks should be held liable no less than the class of bailees, which includes shipping companies, innkeepers, and others." However, "in 1833, in the case of Pitts v. Glegg, the court held that sums credited to a client's account by a banker, although usually called deposits, were in fact loans from the client to the banker." Nevertheless, the courts recognized that the use of the term "deposit" was misleading, although they allowed bankers to use it. Developing this view, Lord Cottenham, in Foley v. Hill in 1848, held: "Money deposited with a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the banker's money, who is free to do with it as he pleases. He is not guilty of breach of trust in using it. He is not liable to the principal for exposing it to danger by engaging in a casual speculation; he is not bound to keep it or treat it as the principal's property, but he is certainly liable for the amount, because, having received it, he contracted to pay the principal, on demand, a sum equivalent to what he received." #bitcoin

Mises said: "#Gold is not an ideal basis for a monetary system. Like everything man-made, the gold standard is not without its flaws; but under existing circumstances there is no other way to exempt the monetary system from the influence of fickle party politics and government intervention…" We can say the same about #Bitcoin. We have no right to be careless and stimulate false euphoria. Bitcoin core developers are arrogant not only because of their own moral decay, but also because of our misplaced, long-standing complacency and intellectual laziness. I'm not talking about everyone, but about the vast majority, including myself. Test your beliefs and tools constantly and mercilessly. A Bitcoin maximalist doesn't necessarily ridicule and insult dissenters. A strong person doesn't waste time on the weaknesses and shortcomings of others, but rather focuses on their own.

Mises said: "No state is powerful enough to abolish the #gold standard. Gold serves as the currency of international trade and the supranational economic community of the human race. It is immune to the measures taken by states whose sovereignty is limited to specific countries. As long as a country is not economically self-sufficient in the strict sense of the term, as long as there are still isolated loopholes in the walls with which nation-states attempt to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, gold continues to be used as money. It matters not that states confiscate gold coins and bullion when discovered, punish those who hoard them as criminals, and that the language of bilateral clearing agreements, through which states seek to exclude gold from international trade, avoids reference to gold. However, the transactions conducted under these agreements are settled in gold. Those who buy and sell on foreign markets calculate the profits and losses from these transactions in gold. Even though a country has severed all links between its local currency and gold, its domestic price structure remains closely tied to gold and world market prices. If a state wishes to decouple its domestic price structure from world market prices, it must resort to other measures, such as prohibitive import and export duties and embargoes. Nationalization of foreign trade, either overtly or through direct exchange controls, does not exclude gold. The state, as a merchant, uses gold as a medium of exchange. The struggle against gold, which is the primary concern of all modern states, cannot be viewed as an isolated phenomenon. It is merely one component of a gigantic process of destruction that has become the hallmark of our times. People fight against the gold standard because they want to replace free trade with autarky, peace with war, and freedom with totalitarian state omnipotence. Perhaps technology will someday discover a way to increase the supply of gold at such a low cost that gold will become useless for monetary purposes. Then people will be forced to replace the gold standard with another. There's no point in worrying about how this problem will be resolved today. We have absolutely no idea the circumstances under which this decision will be made." Today, we know the circumstances of the #Bitcoin standard's birth in every detail. The new monetary standard replaces the old one not because the latter is useless. The Bitcoin standard is gradually taking over economic power from the gold standard, just as a new accountant takes over the old accountant's files and documents. They don't need to quarrel. They don't need to measure their genitals. Because they are smarter than their adherents.

Mises said: "The purchasing power of #money is unstable. But the very concept of stability and immutability of purchasing power is absurd. In a living and changing world, no stability of purchasing power can exist. In the ideal design of a smoothly rotating economy, there is no room for a medium of exchange. Changes in purchasing power are the essence of money. #bitcoin

Driven by the massive influx of gold into world markets following the discovery of Californian and Australian #gold deposits, the gold-silver exchange rate fell rapidly between 1848 and 1859, causing the premium on silver coinage to increase. For example, while the 15.85 to 1 exchange rate in 1848 was equivalent to a 0.8% premium on American #silver coinage, the 15.33 to 1 exchange rate in 1853 was equivalent to a 4.3% premium. This led not only to a rapid decline in silver supply to the Mint but also to the disappearance of silver coins from circulation—first half dollars, and then smaller coins. Public outrage erupted over the shortage of small change. Various measures were taken to correct this situation. In 1849, the government began issuing one-dollar gold coins, of which approximately $19 million was issued by 1862. In 1854, the minting of three-dollar gold coins began, and after 1849, the production of two-and-a-half-dollar gold coins increased sharply. Banknotes in denominations of less than a dollar, as well as fractional denominations of $1.25, $1.50, and $1.75, were issued. Privately issued banknotes and coins also circulated. In rural areas, the population increasingly used "sharp change" or "chopped money"—Spanish dollars cut into quarters, eighths, and sixteenths. In addition, banknotes were torn in half and quarters, and these fragments became popularly known as "rags." Where gold fails, #Bitcoin succeeds.

If you want to understand what #Islam stands for, then watch this. It’s just so depraved. Iranian Mullah: “Women are animals created by Allah to be used by men. Women are no different from cows, sheep, horses, or mules. God made women resemble humans.” https://x.com/i/status/2032627487172108766

Thanks to Augustus [27 BC – 14 AD], gold prevailed over silver. Augustus reduced the weight of the aureus from 126 grains, as it had been under Julius Caesar, to 122.9 grains. Gold and silver were minted with very precise weights [at a ratio of 12.5 to 1]. Copper and bronze were minted much more casually, i.e., the exact metal content of the coin was not monitored, but rather the required number of coins were minted from one pound. From Augustus to Nero [14–37 AD], this system remained unchanged, although the weight of the aureus was gradually reduced administratively, with a corresponding reduction in the weight of the denarius. In the period from Nero to Diocletian [284-305] the monetary system of the empire was in complete disarray, and debasement of coins became commonplace. The reigns of Claudius [41–54 CE] and Nero were marked by a massive counterfeiting and the widespread circulation of privately issued billon coins, primarily made of lead. Diocletian twice reduced the weight of the aureus in 312, and Constantine the Great [306–337] carried out a monetary reform that reduced the gold content of the aureus to approximately 70 grains—thus, since the time of Nero, the aureus has depreciated by approximately 38%. #bitcoin #btc