Изначально было ошибкой разрешать использовать асики для майнинга.
Интересная точка зрения... Позвольте спросить - чья это была ошибка, чье решение? Кто тот субъект, который волевым решением (наверное, росчерком пера?) разрешил использование асиков для майнинга? На кого следует возложить ответственность за эту ошибку  ? Возможно, имелся в виду "запрет" на выделенное аппаратное решение в виде соответствующего алгоритма. Сомневаюсь, что это вообще возможно в принципе, но здесь нашлись люди утверждающие, что-то подобное. За что купил, за то и продал... |
|
|
|
Когда человека начинают подозревать в уклонилове? Дайте ссылку на пост если есть ответ.
+ тоже интересно Когда он подаёт декларацию о доходах (форма 3-НДФЛ) и не указывает в ней доходы, с которых должен был заплатить подоходный налог в соответствующем объёме (а налоговая об этом узнает). Ещё более зловещий вариант, когда по закону требуется подавать декларацию, а декларация не подаётся. Например, при продаже недвижимого имущества, если мне не изменяет память (налоговая об этом узнает от Росреестра), даже в том случае, если нет необходимости уплаты налога (прошло три года с момента приобретения имущества)... |
|
|
|
С чего Вы конкретно смеялись? С американской пословицы, но я об этом ни слова не говорил... или с того, что использование биткойна устраняет необходимость в посредничестве?
Я выделил жирным текстом соответствующий фрагмент текста. Конкретно то, что "каждый сам себе банк, экономист, эксперт", именно это меня повеселило. Люди в подавляющей своей массе не понимают, как считаются сложные проценты (хотя суть сложного процента большинство всё же понимает), а тут целый банк. А пословица лишь метафора, раскрывающая смысл и последствия сказанного вами в краткой и образной форме (ничего личного)... |
|
|
|
I've just read all 24 pages of this thread as it touches on issues that I'm interested in myself.
deisik - you seem to be saying that BTC is doomed to fail because there is nothing to stop banks using derivatives of BTC to create future credit/debt in pretty much the same way that they do today using fiat and the multiplier effect (or some have called it FRB - I'm not really interested in the distinction between the two personally).
Yes, and it seems that we have just that coming up recently. I'm speaking about Winkelvoss Twins’ Bitcoin ETF which is now being approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Not strictly banks but to the same effect as I see and understand it... |
|
|
|
USA openly killed Bin Laden without trial
not necessarily the death of bin laden had already been reported multiple times a few years earlier no evidence of a corpse has been pulished those that executed the bin laden mission died in helicopter crashes but i agree that the united statan government openly stated to have killed bin laden without trial and it is disturbing that there are people considering that acceptable Yeah, and those people come here to blame Russian authorities for being cruel, lawless or whatever... |
|
|
|
Ваша пара биткоинов "под подушкой" вообще мало кому будет интересна (разве только кул-хацкерам)
Почему то создается праноидальное впечатление, что как раз за этими средствами "под подушкой" все и охотятся. С этими же "вредными" находят консенсус, договариваются, уживаются т.к хищнику сложнее охотится на хищника. И большинство законов выглядит так, чтоб было удобно всем кто там договорился, а на мелочь наплевать, ей же деваться не куда. И вот, вдруг эта мелочь начинает сама на многих плевать. Т.к теперь можно просто делать все "из рук в руки". Не нужно полагаться на "экспертов", пользоваться их банковскими услугами, защитами, гарантиями.... Каждый сам себе банк, экономист, эксперт. В такой ситуации перекрыть кислород они смогут только себе, если не вольются в тему которую контролировать как раньше уже не получится. Старые теории, их оплот, здесь не работают, нужна адаптация. Поэтому и методы захотел перекрыл, захотел открыл не совсем сработают. Но мы пока в самом начале этой эпопеи, и бежать далеко вперед рано. Спасибо, посмеялси... Есть одна весёлая американская пословица, она, правда, конкретно про адвокатов (ну страна такая, чё там), а именно "a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client". По-русски примерно как "кто сам себе адвокат, у того клиент - идиот", лол... |
|
|
|
So who are you to teach me the language (and economics, lol)?
A native speaker, lol. Gee, today this tactic won't work anymore. Sometimes those "native speakers" can't even agree between themselves, and none turns out to be right (or correct) in the end, lol... Read from here |
|
|
|
No, this plural form is often used in the economics literature in regard to money systems or currencies...
That doesn't change the fact that the use as an uncountable noun is by far the more common one. Even in your linked dictionary the plural form "moneys"/"monies" is listed as the third of three definitions. I never claimed anything to the contrary. I just showed that your alleged mastery of the English language is far from being perfect, that's all. So who are you to teach me the language (and economics, lol)? I think it's time to wind up... |
|
|
|
When "money" is used as a noun, it is usually plural, in which case you don't need an article. But in this case "money" is being used as an adjective, and the noun, "multiplier", is singular.
You probably meant to say singular, right? For example, money is scarce. When we talk about moneys (or use an indefinite article with the word, i.e. a money), we actually mean currencies or money systems... Hmm, maybe. "Money" is generally used as an uncountable noun (as in "I have a lot of money"). There's no such word as "moneys" (though the word "monies" is sometimes used in certain situations). You are just flat-out wrong here, period. And this perfectly well shows your level of the English language knowledge, lol... Stop being ridiculous (and now I'm serious) ? Your link confirms what I said. "[noncount]" means it is an uncountable noun. "plural monies or moneys" Oh, that. Fair enough. I guess some people use the word "moneys". No, this plural form is often used in the economics literature in regard to money systems or currencies. And as I said above, I see the first form (monies) very rarely there... |
|
|
|
When "money" is used as a noun, it is usually plural, in which case you don't need an article. But in this case "money" is being used as an adjective, and the noun, "multiplier", is singular.
You probably meant to say singular, right? For example, money is scarce. When we talk about moneys (or use an indefinite article with the word, i.e. a money), we actually mean currencies or money systems... Hmm, maybe. "Money" is generally used as an uncountable noun (as in "I have a lot of money"). There's no such word as "moneys" (though the word "monies" is sometimes used in certain situations). You are just flat-out wrong here, period. And this perfectly well shows your level of the English language knowledge, lol... Stop being ridiculous (and now I'm serious) ? Your link confirms what I said. "[noncount]" means it is an uncountable noun. "plural monies or moneys", The first form (monies) I almost never see in the economics literature. The second form (moneys) I see in anything dedicated to money systems... |
|
|
|
So the word money itself serves as a specifier here. I think the use of other specifiers is redundant here (though not prohibited)...
Interesting. I've definitely noticed that Russian speakers tend to frequently drop articles ("in Soviet Russia, car drives you"), but I've never before heard an explanation for why. In any event, in English, articles are used to specify whether the noun is definite or indefinite. The word "money" doesn't do this. Lol, but the word money itself is primarily used without any specifier (save for very specific cases indeed)... When "money" is used as a noun, it is usually plural, in which case you don't need an article. But in this case "money" is being used as an adjective, and the noun, "multiplier", is singular. You probably meant to say singular, right? For example, money is scarce. When we talk about moneys (or use an indefinite article with the word, i.e. a money), we actually mean currencies or money systems... Hmm, maybe. "Money" is generally used as an uncountable noun (as in "I have a lot of money"). There's no such word as "moneys" (though the word "monies" is sometimes used in certain situations). You are just flat-out wrong here, period. And this perfectly well shows your level of the English language knowledge, lol... Stop being ridiculous (and now I'm serious) |
|
|
|
Are you denying that you're not very good at writing in English? Do you deny that many of your sentences are grammatically incorrect?
Show me the code examples, I'm really curious. <...> I read half of your post, and yes, in one place I evidently lost an auxiliary verb, lol. Should I read the rest? Edit: I read the other half. I can agree only on one grammatical mistake which I already admitted above (and fixed that)... Most of the mistakes are missing articles, but, for example, here are two which misuse the present simple passive tense: "And this is what called money multiplication, i.e. creating mutually extinguishing assets and liabilities" ("what called money multiplication" should be "what is called money multiplication") I have already admitted losing an auxiliary verb there (and fixed that in the original post). Another example is also my fault (also fixed that now). I don't always reread my posts after submitting them (or before, lol), so these mistakes are quite possible... |
|
|
|
So the word money itself serves as a specifier here. I think the use of other specifiers is redundant here (though not prohibited)...
Interesting. I've definitely noticed that Russian speakers tend to frequently drop articles ("in Soviet Russia, car drives you"), but I've never before heard an explanation for why. In any event, in English, articles are used to specify whether the noun is definite or indefinite. The word "money" doesn't do this. Lol, but the word money itself is primarily used without any specifier (save for very specific cases indeed)... When "money" is used as a noun, it is usually plural, in which case you don't need an article. But in this case "money" is being used as an adjective, and the noun, "multiplier", is singular. You probably meant to say singular, right? For example, money is scarce. When we talk about moneys (or use an indefinite article with the word, i.e. a money), we actually mean currencies or money systems... |
|
|
|
You won't take my words seriously?
I want you to take my words seriously. I just don't want you to take them as an insult.
Oh, I'm so sorry for that... But as I said before, it takes a lot to see me hurt, though it doesn't take that much to write somebody off as not being serious, lol |
|
|
|
So the word money itself serves as a specifier here. I think the use of other specifiers is redundant here (though not prohibited)...
Interesting. I've definitely noticed that Russian speakers tend to frequently drop articles ("in Soviet Russia, car drives you"), but I've never before heard an explanation for why. In any event, in English, articles are used to specify whether the noun is definite or indefinite. The word "money" doesn't do this. Lol, but the word money itself is primarily used without any specifier (save for very specific cases indeed)... |
|
|
|
In fact, I said it correctly describes the mechanics, but doesn't explain why this multiplier is money multiplier in the first place (i.e. the principle of money multiplication)...
There seems to be a missing word in that sentence between "is" and " money". Is the missing word "the" or "a" (or something else)? I don't think so. Do you think that "This multiplier is money multiplier." is a proper English sentence? I think you should better quote the whole sentence. And yes, I think it is correct. You may personally not love it (and this for sure isn't a surprise to me, lol), but I don't see what you refer to here... |
|
|
|
Are you denying that you're not very good at writing in English? Do you deny that many of your sentences are grammatically incorrect?
Show me the code examples, I'm really curious. <...> I read half of your post, and yes, in one place I evidently lost an auxiliary verb, lol. Should I read the rest? Edit: I read the other half. I can agree only on one grammatical mistake which I already admitted above (and fixed that)... |
|
|
|
In any case, "money multiplier" is not "the principle of money multiplication". I'm not sure what is even meant by the term "the principle of money multiplication". Googling "the principle of money multiplication" gives me two hits. That's certainly not a phrase that's commonly used.
Googling " the principle of money" gives me about 63,400 results, whereas " the principle of multiplication" yields about 6,130,000 results, lol. The search for the phrase " money multiplication" produces only about 21,000 results. Apparently, money multiplication and the principle behind it are certainly not what people discuss on a daily basis, double lol... |
|
|
|
I guess Wikipedia actually got something right for a change.
I didn't plagiarize my answer from Wikipedia, if that's what you're suggesting.
I didn't mean to say you copied it from Wikipedia. But if you open the corresponding article there, you will see that it tells almost the same... And if you open up a typical Economics textbook used at the college/university level in the United States, you'll probably see something similar as well. If it's all wrong, I'd be interested in hearing about that. I didn't say it is all wrong, lol. And I didn't say you said so. You seem to either intentionally misinterpret my words or just not read closely enough my posts.
I assure you that my misinterpretation of your words is completely unintentional. I'm trying to read your posts more carefully. But it's often better for me to just ask questions. In fact, I said it correctly describes the mechanics, but doesn't explain why this multiplier is money multiplier in the first place (i.e. the principle of money multiplication)...
There seems to be a missing word in that sentence between "is" and " money". Is the missing word "the" or "a" (or something else)? I don't think so. The emphasis is on money here, i.e. what makes this multiplier somehow related to multiplying money. So the word money itself serves as a specifier here. I think the use of other specifiers is redundant here (though not prohibited)... |
|
|
|
Here is the link. My edition has another cover, but the editor is the same, so this one (judging by the year) should overall be the same book that I have... Yeah, I suspect we're mostly just having translation issues. I'll try to be more aware of this in the future. Hopefully you will as well. I don't think so, lol. If you think that I will take this, then you are just wrong. This simply won't work as you planned it... By "If you think that I will take this" do you mean "If you think that I will stand for this"? Lol, I meant that I wouldn't take your words seriously... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
