Но вообще-то это не я придумал. В словаре так написано, что в просторечии и в разговорной речи слово "англиканизм" часто используется в значении "англицизм", поскольку словоформа образуется по аналогии (коммунизм, иудаизм и т.д.).
В каком конкретно словаре такое написано? А насчет аналогии: по вашему, коммунизм - это заимствование слова из коммунистического языка, а иудаизм - из иудаистического? Да вот самое первое, что нашлось. Словообразование - это больше форма, чем содержание (суффиксы там всякие, а не семантика). Короче, человек, который ни разу не слышал ни одного из этих двух слов, скорее скажет англиканизм, а не англицизм (в значении последнего). Сам такое не один раз слышал, да и обсуждаемый здесь случай подтверждает это... |
|
|
|
One key aspect worth noting is that, up until the advent of virtual currencies, one large edge of inflationary over deflationary policies is the fundamental limit to how small your currency can be functionally made for transfer.
The indefinite divisibility of bitcoin completely bypasses this incentivizing increasing monetary velocity as a result.
Bitcoin is not and never will be infinitely* divisible. Amount 0.00000001 BTC is currently the smallest unit. Value is currently expressed by 8byte (64bit) number of this units. This means there is space for 18 446 744 073 709 551 616 units. Considering maximum 21M coins, smallest unit would be ~1.14E-12 BTC. Effectively this means space for adding additional 3 decimal places up to 1E-11 BTC without change of data field. We can estimate gross domestic product of planet Earth to be less than 1E14 USD (about 0.83E14 in 2012). If all the world economy was converted to bitcoins then 1 Satoshi would be worth 4.762 cents in current USD. This is too much for micropayments. Above mentioned "smallest unit" would be worth thousand times less. I consider this to be adequate (for the planetary phase of human evolution) :-]. * - not infinitely divisible. But division up to the number of atoms in the observed universe would be no problem. Still long shot to infinity. And to correctly write down this number would require even more atoms (let alone making a transaction or handling it in some way, lol)... You can write this number (its lower and higher estimate) quite easily. But you can not write all numbers from 1 to this number (without exhausting matter and energy in the universe). I specifically mentioned 'correctly' which, I guess, is something different from the number's lower and higher estimates. The number of atoms in the universe is about 10^80 (if I'm not mistaken), so that to completely (read exactly) write down an arbitrary number with such division you would need about 10^80 digits, right? |
|
|
|
Hello! I expirenced some problem today. I can't login with my account, and more - when I try to recover password I get "No account associated with this email address" error. Can you check why? login: lex29071991@gmail.comThx in advance! The anti-cheat system blocked your account because you had created more than 200 accounts to abuse the free play game. oh its sucks more then 200 accounts I just have one and enjoying on this and he is doing this with more then 200 God bless him  That's crazy! Why would someone make 200 accounts for a few free mBTC's? There is a bot being promoted somewhere around this forum (ain't gonna advertise it though) which allegedly allows to handle that number of accounts (I didn't test it, so don't ask me if it works)... |
|
|
|
One key aspect worth noting is that, up until the advent of virtual currencies, one large edge of inflationary over deflationary policies is the fundamental limit to how small your currency can be functionally made for transfer.
The indefinite divisibility of bitcoin completely bypasses this incentivizing increasing monetary velocity as a result.
Bitcoin is not and never will be infinitely* divisible. Amount 0.00000001 BTC is currently the smallest unit. Value is currently expressed by 8byte (64bit) number of this units. This means there is space for 18 446 744 073 709 551 616 units. Considering maximum 21M coins, smallest unit would be ~1.14E-12 BTC. Effectively this means space for adding additional 3 decimal places up to 1E-11 BTC without change of data field. We can estimate gross domestic product of planet Earth to be less than 1E14 USD (about 0.83E14 in 2012). If all the world economy was converted to bitcoins then 1 Satoshi would be worth 4.762 cents in current USD. This is too much for micropayments. Above mentioned "smallest unit" would be worth thousand times less. I consider this to be adequate (for the planetary phase of human evolution) :-]. * - not infinitely divisible. But division up to the number of atoms in the observed universe would be no problem. Still long shot to infinity. And to correctly write down this number would require even more atoms (let alone making a transaction or handling it in some way, lol)... |
|
|
|
Зато есть официальный орган государственной власти - Банк России.
Родной Центробанк, он знает как правильно писать название этих ваших суррогатных денег.
Нельзя просто так взять и запретить биткоин - даже Центробанк это понимает (а вы, судя по всему, нет, лол). А вот биткойн - всегда пожалуйста! |
|
|
|
Не существует клиента Bitcoin, носящего титул "официальный"
Вообще-то изначально (если мне не изменяет память, конечно) был именно официальный клиент (как минимум де-факто, поскольку других не было). Это сейчас он перестал быть официальным, но и тогда там был "биткоин"... |
|
|
|
Не англиканизм, а англицизм. Англиканизм - это следование религиозной конфессии англиканской церкви. Известный документ Сатоши написан на английском языке, и слово биткойн имеет английское происхождение. Поэтому в русском языке является новым англицизмом. А те, кто стоял у истоков биткойна, таких грубых терминологических ошибок как "биткоИн" не делали.
Термин "англиканизм" тоже корректно использовать в данном значении (часто используют исходя из аналогии "американизм").. Интересно... По вашей логике, раз фраза "Вашингтон находится в Америке" корректна, то и " Лондон находится в Англике" тоже ? Вот похоже такие как вы и изобрели "биткоин". Нет такого слова в этой букве, лол Но вообще-то это не я придумал. В словаре так написано, что в просторечии и в разговорной речи слово "англиканизм" часто используется в значении "англицизм", поскольку словоформа образуется по аналогии (коммунизм, иудаизм и т.д.). Про англицизм мало кто слышал (если что я слышал и знаю)... |
|
|
|
В соответствии с требованиями типографики допускается написание И вместо Й
Пруф будет? Нигде и никогда не видел, чтобы вместо й использовалась и. Какои такои пруф? Не надеитесь даже и наити смысл в бреде, которыи несут стоикие сторонники биткоина. Я не принадлежу к сторонникам. Не надо пытаться поляризовать. Я просто попытался объяснить, откуда вообще могло появиться это "и". "И" появилось, потому что на сайте разработчиков "биткоин", и в локализованной русской версии официального клиента тоже "биткоин" (и никаких "й"). Однако не перевелись ещё неадекваты альтернативно одарённые, кому даже родное название не указ... |
|
|
|
Honestly mate, no one with that low society income have internet + a computer + knowledge about what a Bitcoin is. So your calculation is just pointless.  If $200 could earn you $2000 monthly, I would definitely consider it as a good investment. So, why not pay 5 bucks to get $600+?
 What are you talking about? Who talk about $200 could earn $2000 a month? You would be surprised. There a lot of people in india with a modern computer. And maybe 1 mbps internet. And they speak English at that! So how many people are from India here, promoting PrimeDice? |
|
|
|
1EmxLqmP3fVMTt1osf3iPyHfQTCcB4rk5q
So may I receive the promised amount? Yep, just send me 0.2 and i'll send you back to your address your original 0.2 + 0.4 . I need you to make your deposit first to be sure you owns your address. You can see my address in my signature. ------------------------------->
some pepople are REALLY beyond any hope
Haha. I wouldnt be suprised if he paid you the deposit  Ok, let's see what happens... erre, don't fail to let us know (if you pay out, lol) |
|
|
|
<irony> Да они же просто обязаны подчиняться требованиям ЦБ! Ведь у них в названии присутсвует слово "bank"!  (Видимо они очень боятся лишиться отсутсвующей у них банковской лицензии...  ) </irony> Как быть банкам спермы в РФ? Там идет обмен намайненой жидкости на деньги! Куда только смотрит правительство!  Про банки крови едва ли кто-нибудь посмеет даже вспомнить и уж тем более заикнуться, ибо laws carved in stone are rewritten in blood... |
|
|
|
Gresham's law only applies when free market currencies are not allowed to compete with fiat (by decree) currency. Otherwise, Thier's law applies, and works in reverse. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law#Reverse_of_Gresham.27s_Law_.28Thiers.27_Law.29These examples show that, in the absence of effective legal tender laws, Gresham's Law works in reverse. If given the choice of what money to accept, people will transact with money they believe to be of highest long-term value. However, if not given the choice, and required to accept all money, good and bad, they will tend to keep the money of greater perceived value in their possession, and pass on the bad money to someone else. In short, in the absence of legal tender laws, the seller will not accept anything but money of certain value (good money), while the existence of legal tender laws will cause the buyer to offer only money with the lowest commodity value (bad money) as the creditor must accept such money at face value.
Thiers' Law refers to a situation where the bad money becomes virtually worthless and practically useless (i.e. ceases to be money), which is obviously not the case with Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin derivatives (the law fully applicable) vs. Dollar (partly applicable). So we still have room for Gresham's Law (or its extension) in the case discussed... |
|
|
|
So, you actually made a fool of yourself. And I warned you of that, lol...
And now you are trying to play the old trick, double lol...
At least I was able to amuse you. I thought you wanted to be taken seriously, not as being amusing... |
|
|
|
If so, my apologies. I should try to be less sarcastic when dealing with people who aren't very good at using the English language.
And now you are trying to play the old trick, double lol... |
|
|
|
For starters, I don't see it as a type of fractional reserve banking.
I remember you saying quite the opposite... I might have once made fun of you and said something about full reserve banking being where the fraction is 1/1. Is that what you're thinking of? So, you actually made a fool of yourself. And I warned you of that, lol... |
|
|
|
For starters, I don't see it as a type of fractional reserve banking.
I remember you saying quite the opposite... |
|
|
|
I'd say "see, I didn't claim that fractional reserve banking would somehow prevent bank runs; to the contrary I claimed that fractional reserve banking causes bank runs."
I'd also say that you still don't seem to understand what I mean by the term "fractional reserve banking".
What about full reserve banking? You probably don't understand what I mean by that term either. I have already found out from your previous post. You meant not loaning demand deposits, which as you claimed (see the quote of your post above) would prevent bank runs. Sorry, this won't... Northern Rock got into trouble because of its subprime mortgage business, and the bank run was a consequence of its problems thereof (surely not the other way round as you would want it). So again you are wrong here, lol... You failed miserably |
|
|
|
From your posts I got the idea that fractional reserve banking (full reserve banking being an ideal) would somehow prevent bank runs. Do you confirm that?
Absolutely not. Okay, now I think I should quote your post here The proper way to eliminate bank runs is to move to 100% reserve banking. All the other solutions cause terrible negative side-effects, and don't even work in the long run What would you say now? I'd say "see, I didn't claim that fractional reserve banking would somehow prevent bank runs; to the contrary I claimed that fractional reserve banking causes bank runs." I'd also say that you still don't seem to understand what I mean by the term "fractional reserve banking". What about full reserve banking? Do you confirm your words that it prevents bank runs? |
|
|
|
From your posts I got the idea that fractional reserve banking (full reserve banking being an ideal) would somehow prevent bank runs. Do you confirm that?
Absolutely not. Okay, now I think I should quote your post here The proper way to eliminate bank runs is to move to 100% reserve banking. All the other solutions cause terrible negative side-effects, and don't even work in the long run What would you say now? |
|
|
|
If the bank goes belly-up, they are lost unless they (as well as demand deposits) are covered by deposit insurance. If they are not, neither fractional, nor full reserve requirements will help here, right?
Right. And then you say that I don't know what bank runs are and what fractional reserve banking is (for that matter), lol... Correct. How come? Lots of reasons, including that you are confusing bank runs with "going belly-up", but the biggest reason is probably that I explained it to you and you said I was wrong, and then refused to explain why I was wrong. If you remember, I told there are many reasons for a bank run. Going belly-up is a good reason for a bank run, isn't it? Usually it's the other way around, but the fact that one can cause the other doesn't negate the fact that you're confusing the two. I don't think so. But it doesn't matter since it is not relevant. From your posts I got the idea that fractional reserve banking (full reserve banking being an ideal) would somehow prevent bank runs (a sample of which you showed). Do you confirm that? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
