eru

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?

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Could you elaborate?

I don't think modelling this as a graph adds anything that you wouldn't get from the phrase 'adversarial review cycles' already. So graph theory is pretty much useless for this application.

Please prove me wrong.

You can ask Claude for the solutions?

You need to look at net salaries after taxes. And for CoL it depends on what your consumption basket is. My cost of living would be higher in London. (I lived in both places.) I don't drive, I don't smoke, I use public transport a lot, and I pay for household help. I do drink beer, which is expensive in Singapore, but it's a small part of my overall budget.

I save a lot of money on 0% capital gains taxes here.

I regularly check London jobs and interview for them, but the numbers haven't made sense so far.

> For comparison purposes, $5m invested well should be about $150k a year forever (3% safe withdrawal rate). If you have a net worth of $5m you should be able to live without working - if you want to (median US household income is $87k).

This is all getting more annoying with capital gains taxes (and inflation, since capital gains taxes are usually levied on nominal gains).

I moved to a place with simpler taxes, including no capital gains taxes.

> If you have a net worth of $5m you should be able to live without working - if you want to (median US household income is $87k).

Depends on how much you want to live off.

> Even in the USA you're not getting to $5m net worth on salary alone, not without decades of it.

I don't think the original commenter was talking about juniors who just started?

Alas, yes, salaries in Germany are pretty bad.

Yes, salaries in the EU are generally pretty bad, and then you have high taxes on top. That's a good reason for why I left the place.

(Though to Singapore, not to the US. Salaries are higher than in the EU (though less than in SV), taxes are a lot lower than in either. Quality of life is higher than in the US for me.)