3 ms·
They did at least pay people, if they surrendered it in time. (Then they raised the price of gold afterwards.) Come to think of it, that's another difference f
by DennisP 6y ago
They did at least pay people, if they surrendered it in time. (Then they raised the price of gold afterwards.)
Come to think of it, that's another difference from "outlawing Bitcoin."
- tablespoon 6y ago> They did at least pay people, if they surrendered it in time. (Then they raised the price of gold afterwards.) Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for them to seize and not pay for it? Though they probably just paid face value in paper money.
- DennisP 6y agoYeah seems to me it'd violate the Fifth Amendment. Since the dollar was backed at $20 per ounce of gold, that's what they paid. Then they changed it to $35/oz.