eru

> Just because you have proven the correctness of your code, that does not mean that it is infallible.

Yes, but it gets you pretty far already.

Well, those modern codecs also take a lot more compute and memory to both decode and encode..

Both war and sports have rules. Eg you are not supposed to murder your opponents to win a football match.

That's a misreading of the text. That pdf gets trotted out again and again.

But let's assume you understood the BoE right. My questions still stand:

> Do tell me, please: why do banks care about getting deposits? And why did Silicon Valley Bank get into trouble, when depositors left?

(And before you answer something about regulation: the regulators had willingly blessed SVB's damaged balance sheet for quite a while, and they only collapsed when depositors decided to leave.)

You might want to read the section of the pdf you linked that includes:

> So if a given bank financed all of its new loans in this way, it would soon run out of reserves.

> But Brasil court doesn't work under precedents. So unless this becomes law, it doesn't change anything for future cases.

German courts official doesn't work under precedent either. But in practice it often behaves like it does. Eg very prominently discussed in the media for judgements around renting of residential property.

In the other direction, in a common law system it's up to the judge to decide what precedent, if any, applies. You can always find some peculiarity of the case that justifies deviation, or you can ignore some peculiarity to justify following a precedent you do like.

And eventually it's grounded in democracy and elections etc.

It would have been interesting to have seen a counterfactual where Greece joined the EU but not the Euro.

OK. But many countries have also outlawed being gay; that doesn't make it legally questionable in general.

On a tangent:

Funnily the Algerian law they quote would not actually apply to bitcoin (but I doubt Algerian judges would see it that way):

> Art. 117. — The purchase, sale, use, and holding of so-called virtual currency is prohibited. Virtual currency is that used by internet users via the web.

Bitcoins have their own protocol independent of the world wide web.

> It is characterized by the absence of physical support such as coins, notes, payments by cheque or credit card.

People have made physical bitcoin coins, and there's plenty of payment cards etc floating around that you can use with bitcoins.

Compare with eg the Brazilian Plano Real which was sort of a virtual currency for quite a while, but I doubt the Algerian law was meant to outlaw that one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plano_Real

Huh? Bitcoin is only worth anything because you can find some third parties that are willing to give you real world assets in exchange for bitcoins.

I can run an exact copy of the bitcoin code in a fork with a new genesis block, and no one would give me even an apple for all my eru-coins.

That's certainly an opinion.

Do tell me, please: why do banks care about getting deposits? And why did Silicon Valley Bank get into trouble, when depositors left?

NATO ain't a free trade pact.

Hence my "Which then begets more regulation."

Customers stop monitoring their bank, when deposits are insured.

The latter, maybe? The former, I'm not so sure. However we don't have many examples of competent organisations trying to enact genocide to compare against. (Fortunately.)

Well, being in the EU makes it a lot easier to trade with the EU.

However I broadly agree otherwise.

> Which country got rich with the EU?

Poland and the other new members in the East, probably?

> I’m sure Nazi Germany had many extraordinarily capable technocratic leaders [...]

Actually, not. They had a few left-over from when Germany had a functioning state, but the Nazis were overall fairly incompetent at actually running the country.

What makes you think Singaporean politicians don't have to deal with voters?

International observers have never found flaw with Singapore's elections, have they?

> but I didn't realise it was so strong on corruption.

That's literally a core part of the brand, isn't it?

Compare also how the various pirate parties have done around the world.

Alas, (effectively) government deposit insurance encourages a lot of risk taking by banks. Which then begets more regulation.

People who essentially want government guarantees for their money should just buy government bonds.

How are all bitcoins legally questionable?

One that you freshly mined seems fairly pristine.

Not a bad place to start, yes.

However, BIS and Basel III (and the previous Basels) are just what's currently in force for most of the world. I suspect most people would be better served by more of an historical overview. But it also depends on what one is interested in.

Btw, backing and promises of redemption are two different things.

Deposits at a regular bank aren't backed by fiat. The bank promises to pay you back in fiat, but they don't keep dollar bills in a vault. The promise is backed with all the bank's assets. Ideally, they have a think equity cushion, so that even if the assets take a hit, the promises don't.

> Is this not exactly why banks have to deposit X amount outside their doors?

Sorry, what do you mean?

Basically, the historical origins of different bank regulations are quite complicated and also differ from place to place, and they were often put in place by (political) coalitions of people who already had not one single motivation but a whole spectrum of them.

And then in addition to historical reasons, you also need to ask why things are still in place. Inertia is one answer, but it's not the only one.

> This is why banks are regulated, [...]

No, it's not. At least not historically.

Your point has nothing to do with fiat.

It applies equally well to a fiduciary coin with a promise that 1 gcoin = 1g of gold or whatever.

Huh? You can trace bitcoins forever, and people would probably pay extra for some vanity bitcoins; and probably pay less or nothing for some bitcoins that are legally questionable.

Anyone can refuse any bitcoin, too. But that's not implemented in the contract, just by how much real money people want to give you for bitcoin.

> (Assuming it's a proof or something - if it's just a number - oh well).

For an LLM, you can ask for a prove that the number is correct. For a textbook, good luck!

Hopefully, verifying a solution is easier for your human brain than coming up with one?