Gauss⚡️

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. 📝 23bf992d…

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 📝 d5c4ccb0…

Seventeen years after the establishment of the #Bank of #England, Addison, in one of his cleverest and most graceful allegories, described the position of this great institution, through which the enormous wealth of London constantly passed. He imagined credit sitting on a throne in the hall of colonial merchants; above his head was the bank's charter, before his eyes the act of William's accession to the throne. Everything turned to gold at his touch. Behind him, sacks of money were piled high to the ceiling. To the right and left of him, pyramids of guineas rose. Suddenly the door opens. The pretender bursts in, sponge in one hand, sword in the other, threatening the deed that gave the crown to William. The magical power that transformed everything around him into treasure vanishes. The pile of sacks falls to the floor: empty; the pyramids of guineas turn into heaps of rags and splinters. #bitcoin #btc 📝 b5c6e82a…

When a merchant sold goods, he agreed on the currency in which he would be paid. Even businessmen became confused by the chaos that beset all monetary transactions. Greed mercilessly robbed the simple and carefree, and its demands on them grew faster than the value of the coin diminished. The prices of basic necessities, shoes, ale, and oatmeal rose rapidly. A worker, coming to buy bread or beer, would find that the coin he'd received for a shilling wasn't worth even half a shilling. Where there were large groups of fairly educated artisans, such as at the Chatham shipyard, the workers managed to be heard and, to some extent, relieved of oppression. But the helpless, ignorant farm laborer suffered cruelly, receiving money from the master by count, while the shopkeeper took it from him only by weight. #bitcoin #btc 📝 12104b18…

Before Charles II, our coins were minted using a method that had survived from the 13th century. Edward I brought in skilled minters from Florence, which in his time was comparable to London. For many generations, the tools introduced into our mint then continued to serve virtually unchanged. The metal was cut with scissors, then the pieces were rounded with a hammer, and the stamp was also hammered onto them. Much depended on the worker's hand and eye. Inevitably, some coins came out with slightly more, others slightly less than the exact amount of metal; only a few were perfectly round, and the coin did not have a rim. Therefore, over time, con artists found that coin clipping was the easiest and most profitable of all scams. Under Elizabeth, it was already deemed necessary to decree that the clipper of a coin should be subject to the same punishment that had long been prescribed for counterfeiters—the death penalty. But the craft of clipping coins could not be killed by such measures, because it was too profitable, and around the time of the Restoration [1660] everyone began to notice that many of the crowns, half-crowns, and shillings that came into hands were somewhat clipped. It was a time abundant with experiments and inventions in all branches of science. A plan emerged for a major improvement in the method of rounding coins and stamping them. A machine was installed in the Tower of London that largely replaced manual work. Horses turned the machine, and mechanics today would certainly call it crude and weak. Nevertheless, the coins it produced were among the best in Europe. They were difficult to counterfeit. Their roundness was perfectly correct, and the inscription ran along the edge; therefore, there was no need to fear clipping. Hand-made and machine-made coins circulated together; the treasury accepted them equally in payment; therefore, the public accepted them equally. The financiers of the time apparently expected that the new coin, a very good one, would soon displace the old coin, which was badly damaged, from circulation. But any intelligent person should have realized that if the treasury accepted a full-weight and a light-weight coin as equivalent, the full-weight coin would not displace the light-weight one from circulation, but would itself be displaced by it. In England, a clipped crown was considered the same as an unclipped machine-made one when paying taxes or debts. But if a machine-made crown were cast into a piece or transported across a canal, it would prove to be worth much more than a clipped one. Therefore, with all the certainty that is possible in predictions about things that depend on the human will, one could predict that a bad coin will remain in that market which alone accepts it at the same price as a good one, and that a good coin will take such a form or go to such a place in which the benefit of its higher value will be obtained. #bitcoin #btc 📝 35770024…

An example of an 18th-century #German sovereign for whom the very idea of ​​having to pay his debts seemed strange is Landgrave Ernst Louis of Hesse-Darmstadt. Suffering from delusions of grandeur, he followed the example of other German princes in building numerous castles, all the while striving to have his own Versailles. He built more than a dozen, including a gigantic palace in which, as the emperor dismissively put it, he could have lived with all the electors and their courtiers. The Landgrave's #money was supplied by the Frankfurt #banker Jacob Bernus, to whom he owed over 1 million guilders. And like many others, Bernus had to learn that, under the legal conditions of the time, no power existed in Germany that could compel a dishonest sovereign to fulfill his obligations, personally signed and sealed by him. Even a court ruling issued in Vienna and entered into force, followed by the emperor's order to the Electors of Trier and the Palatinate to enforce it and force the Landgrave to pay, could not help him. The Electors remained unmoved, and the Landgrave died in 1739 without paying a penny. Bernus could also receive nothing from the copper tithes and income from the Landgrave's iron works received as collateral. And Ernst Louis's successor, Louis VIII, refused to pay, claiming he was not responsible for his predecessor's personal debts. Meanwhile, as crown prince, he expressed his consent to loans from Bernus and, in some cases, even solemnly promised to pay his father's debts in the event of his father's death. True, Louis VIII found it increasingly difficult after this to raise money from Frankfurt capitalists, and this sovereign was constantly in need of money, searching for it everywhere, begging at every Frankfurt fair, taking savings from his subjects, including court lackeys, musicians, and foresters. Only in 1778 did the next Elector, Louis IX, agree to pay the heirs and creditors of Jacob Bernus approximately 28% of the debt without interest and in 3% bonds. It is not surprising that in the mid-18th century they also said: do not lend to someone stronger, and if you do, look at the amount as lost, and they added: nobles make promises, but only peasants keep them. npub1y2q9ds6qp7ms0mr882ju0g9dwvy4llje93tpwe0f4nmtczxty4uq7a37av #bitcoin #btc 📝 6ff568fb…

Only in #England, from 1663 onward, were coins produced exclusively by machine, then their weight verified and minted using a lever press. But even there, alongside this magnificent coin—which, as contemporaries said, was truly unparalleled at the time—an older coin, minted using the same method, continued to circulate for nearly 70 years (it was completely withdrawn from circulation from 1732 onward). Consequently, England, too, experienced monetary crises in the 17th and early 18th centuries. Meanwhile, not only did the government, unlike other countries, not derive any revenue from the coinage, but even the very costs of minting (from 1666) were entirely absorbed by the treasury (something that still does not exist in other countries), so that the coin's nominal value and its actual metal content were identical. But coin crises occurred because the old-fashioned coinage was displacing the new, machine-made coinage. The old coinage, being neither round nor uniform in thickness, was easily clipped, and the best specimens were removed from circulation. As a result, only debased and clipped coins remained in circulation, having lost on average 40-50% of their nominal value, and in some cases only 1/4 or 1/6 of it. In 1696, this led to even merchants losing their heads, and the farmer having to deal, on the one hand, with people who paid money at face value, and on the other, with people who would only accept it by weight (i.e., at approximately half its face value). As a result, when experiments with weighing coins were carried out in 1695, it was found that the 57,200 pounds of hammered silver deposited in the treasury weighed only 114,000 ounces, instead of 220,000 ounces, i.e., half; 100 pounds sterling, which should have contained about 400 ounces, actually had 240 ounces in Bristol, 203 in Cambridge, 180 in Exeter, and only 116 ounces in Oxford. The decline in the weight of silver coins was particularly acute in the 1690s. The evil wrought by such a state of coinage is not one of those things to which history assigns a place of honor. Nevertheless, one can hardly compare all the misfortunes inflicted on the people over the course of a quarter of a century by bad ministers, bad parliaments, and bad judges with those who produced bad crowns and bad shillings. The reigns of Charles and James, however hard they were on the people, never hindered the peaceful course of daily life. At the very time when the honor and independence of the state were being sold to another power, when rights were trampled underfoot, and the fundamental laws of the land were violated, hundreds of thousands of diligent families worked, sat down to table, and went to bed peacefully and securely, cattlemen drove their oxen to market, merchants weighed their goods, clothiers measured out their cloth, buyers and sellers in the cities behaved especially noisily, and harvest festivals in the villages were celebrated even more joyfully than before. When the great instrument of circulation fell into complete disarray, commerce and industry stagnated. Evil was felt daily and hourly, everywhere and by all classes of the population: on the manor and in the barn, at the anvil and at the loom, on the ocean waves and in the bowels of the earth. Nothing could be bought without misunderstandings. At every stall, quarrels erupted from morning until evening. Clashes between workers and employers occurred regularly every Saturday. At the fair and the market, there was constant noise, shouting, cursing, and cursing, and it was a special blessing if the matter ended without broken chests or murder. npub1y2q9ds6qp7ms0mr882ju0g9dwvy4llje93tpwe0f4nmtczxty4uq7a37av #bitcoin #fiat #history 📝 7002ae04…

Only in #England, from 1663 onward, were coins produced exclusively by machine, then their weight verified and minted using a lever press. But even there, alongside this magnificent coin—which, as contemporaries said, was truly unparalleled at the time—an older coin, minted using the same method, continued to circulate for nearly 70 years (it was completely withdrawn from circulation from 1732 onward). Consequently, England, too, experienced monetary crises in the 17th and early 18th centuries. Meanwhile, not only did the government, unlike other countries, not derive any revenue from the coinage, but even the very costs of minting (from 1666) were entirely absorbed by the treasury (something that still does not exist in other countries), so that the coin's nominal value and its actual metal content were identical. But coin crises occurred because the old-fashioned coinage was displacing the new, machine-made coinage. The old coinage, being neither round nor uniform in thickness, was easily clipped, and the best specimens were removed from circulation. As a result, only debased and clipped coins remained in circulation, having lost on average 40-50% of their nominal value, and in some cases only 1/4 or 1/6 of it. In 1696, this led to even merchants losing their heads, and the farmer having to deal, on the one hand, with people who paid money at face value, and on the other, with people who would only accept it by weight (i.e., at approximately half its face value). As a result, when experiments with weighing coins were carried out in 1695, it was found that the 57,200 pounds of hammered silver deposited in the treasury weighed only 114,000 ounces, instead of 220,000 ounces, i.e., half; 100 pounds sterling, which should have contained about 400 ounces, actually had 240 ounces in Bristol, 203 in Cambridge, 180 in Exeter, and only 116 ounces in Oxford. The decline in the weight of silver coins was particularly acute in the 1690s. The evil wrought by such a state of coinage is not one of those things to which history assigns a place of honor. Nevertheless, one can hardly compare all the misfortunes inflicted on the people over the course of a quarter of a century by bad ministers, bad parliaments, and bad judges with those who produced bad crowns and bad shillings. The reigns of Charles and James, however hard they were on the people, never hindered the peaceful course of daily life. At the very time when the honor and independence of the state were being sold to another power, when rights were trampled underfoot, and the fundamental laws of the land were violated, hundreds of thousands of diligent families worked, sat down to table, and went to bed peacefully and securely, cattlemen drove their oxen to market, merchants weighed their goods, clothiers measured out their cloth, buyers and sellers in the cities behaved especially noisily, and harvest festivals in the villages were celebrated even more joyfully than before. When the great instrument of circulation fell into complete disarray, commerce and industry stagnated. Evil was felt daily and hourly, everywhere and by all classes of the population: on the manor and in the barn, at the anvil and at the loom, on the ocean waves and in the bowels of the earth. Nothing could be bought without misunderstandings. At every stall, quarrels erupted from morning until evening. Clashes between workers and employers occurred regularly every Saturday. At the fair and the market, there was constant noise, shouting, cursing, and cursing, and it was a special blessing if the matter ended without broken chests or murder.

Even in the time of William III (i.e., at the end of the 17th century), old men reminisced about the times when there wasn't a single banker in the City of London; every merchant kept a cash register in his own home, and when bills were presented to him, he paid in cash. But then a new fashion arose, and a new class of agents emerged to guard the merchants' cash registers: goldsmiths, whose cellars could store large quantities of gold and silver ingots without danger from fire or robbery. This innovation caused much uproar and protest. Merchants of the old breed bitterly complained that men who, just 30 years earlier, had confined themselves to their profession and earned good profits by making cups and bowls, setting diamonds for beautiful women, and selling pistoles and thalers to travelers setting out for the continent of Europe, now became treasurers of almost the entire City. These moneylenders play a dangerous game with what others have earned through their diligence and saved through their thrift. If successful, the clever cashier becomes an alderman; if unsuccessful, the deceived one who fills his coffers ends up bankrupt. But others insisted on the advantages of a new system that saves labor and money: two clerks in one office, under the new system, perform the same work as twenty in twenty different offices before; a goldsmith's ticket changes hands ten times in the course of a single morning, and thanks to this, a hundred guineas lying under his lock and key near the Exchange perform the same function as a thousand guineas scattered among various drawers before. As a result, even those who shouted the loudest were forced to submit to the new custom.

Why is there no fairy tale that approves of such a scenario?

#Palestinian #Muslim ruler of #Hamas explains that after destroying Israel along with its entire #Jewish population, Hamas will move on: "to create a world where Christianity does not exist." They've been saying this since day one. They've been speaking about it directly and honestly. This is their source code, which no Muslim has the right to change. No discussion or dissent. Any doubt is considered treason and is punishable by death. Not excommunication or social ostracism, but death. https://x.com/i/status/2031720750885777864

Great interview, @Paula. https://youtu.be/tvY_oZNSWF4?si=tOsChezqsLe4ctYf

I'm pleased to announce Release Candidate 3 of the #UASF #BIP-110 v0.1 official client: github.com/dathonohm/bitc… @Start9, @Umbrel ☂️, and @mynodebtc have been updated (see thread). Thanks to the #Bitcoin community, for your support. Bitcoin is money!

Exposing Simon Dixon's Double Standards: Beneath the Mask of a Sovereign Individual npub1546jstdajzf6gw4plvr6z4kpcaxtvl3h0zjdv5gw8tx8uup5d6rq8ef9mt presents himself as a champion against elites, a Bitcoin defender through self-custody, and an anti-imperialist urging everyone to "follow the money." But when you dig deeper into his views, what emerges is a web of contradictions: principles of freedom applied selectively, with criticism driven by personal and religious biases. 1. Selective History in Geopolitics: He passionately condemns Zionism as colonialism marked by displacement, genocide, and apartheid, framing Israel as a proxy for American military-industrial imperialism. At the same time, he completely overlooks similar historical actions by Arabs and Muslims—from the 7th-century conquests (seizing the Levant and Palestine "by right of the conqueror") to Ottoman expansion, which involved cultural shifts and subjugation. He rails against Western or Zionist empires but stays silent on Muslim ones. This isn't genuine anti-imperialism; it's biased selectivity with an anti-Western and pro-Islamic tilt. A real libertarian would reject all conquests equally as violations of individual rights. 2. One-Sided View of Islam: Dixon portrays Islam as a personal path of peace, tolerance, and resisting oppression (quoting verses like "no compulsion in religion" and limiting jihad to self-defense). Yet he never mentions the dhimmi system—the institutionalized subjugation of non-Muslims in Islamic societies: jizya tax for "protection," restrictions on bearing arms, building new places of worship, equal court testimony, or criticizing Islam. This creates a clear hierarchy where non-Muslims are second-class citizens, involving economic and social coercion that's incompatible with true equality and non-aggression. By glossing over this, Dixon romanticizes Muslim history as "harmonious," implicitly justifying domination. As a Muslim, his drive comes from a religious sense of duty to "serve humanity," but it makes his anti-oppression stance selective—freedom only on his terms. 2. Fixation on Saylor and Dictating the "Right" Way to Bitcoin: Day after day in posts, podcasts, and videos, he accuses npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m of serving elites, centralizing Bitcoin via debt, and sabotaging the revolution (custody vs. self-custody). He claims $MSTR is a tool for price manipulation through FUD and potential forced sales. But on a free market, a sovereign individual should be free to handle their capital any way they choose—whether through leveraged treasuries, ETFs, or derivatives. The risks are theirs alone. Dixon doesn't just highlight dangers (which could be helpful); he passes moral judgment and prescribes the "one true path" (self-custody only). His manipulation theory falls apart under scrutiny: $MSTR shares drop in response to BTC stagnation, not the reverse—the market naturally punishes leverage. This obsession comes across as fixation, perhaps psychological or tied to promoting his own agenda/business. Conclusions: Behind the "follow the money" mantra lies not objective insight but a subjective ideology—anti-Western, pro-Islamic, laced with collectivist tendencies. Dixon excuses historical hierarchies (like dhimmi), condemns others' choices, and pushes a "revolution" where freedom is reserved for those who align with his vision. He's valuable for pointing out risks in centralization and leverage, but his stance isn't libertarianism—it's propaganda riddled with double standards. True freedom means no one dictates your choices: how to hold BTC, whom to criticize, or which history to focus on. No one owes the "revolution" anything against their will. Always test these gurus for consistency—otherwise, their "truth" is just a disguise for control. #Bitcoin #Libertarianism

Thank you @Samson Mow ! #bitcoin #bitcoin_knots #knots https://youtu.be/LDWen7YHurU?si=4PqtXAoOK_7_gKWL