You actually don't know that, caveat emptor or otherwise

There are things which you take as granted, even the very fact that you can be a buyer and considered such (more specifically, as possessing a certain set of rights), but you might not see that it is made possible because of the nanny state somewhere down the line. In other words, you only see the tip of the iceberg and arrive at an erroneous conclusion that you lose more with a nanny state than without. Without, you wouldn't even be a consumer in the first place


I just point out that meritocracy is only, well, a dream. And a dangerous dream at that, in the sense of idealistically trying to achieve it and realistically achieving probably the worst form of nepotism instead, thoroughly disguised as meritocracy (arguably the worst part of it)

I would be particularly cautious in drawing such conclusions

Bitcoin is king simply due to the fact that fiat fails. As I see it, one thing is to be a king on one's own terms and merits (which Bitcoin is not), and the other to be a king through the failure of something else (read, by luck). In simple terms, if governments didn't destroy fiat by insane money-printing conveniently couched as fiscal stimulus, quantitative easing, and the whole spectrum of other euphemisms, fiat would still reign supreme

So let's write a nice sum-up

Cash is best when you have to hide your money from the government because it is typically untraceable (it takes time and, ironically, money to make a pack of bills traceable), and it is indispensable for everyday expenses. But its margin of usability is still pretty thin. It is not as thin as that of payment cards (i.e. you can still pay in cash when you can no longer pay with a payment card) but if things go massively awry, it will quickly lose its appeal as well. And the sum-up is that you should use it wisely, with complete awareness of its strengths and weaknesses

If you are working online, you are going to face extreme competition these days. Are you reading the forum? It is full of posts from some web-developer complaining about that thing exactly


No, this has nothing to do with religion

I'm mostly referring to this post. So if you are a developer or something to that tune, you should be familiar with this phenomenon, the so-called "legendary cheap Hindus". To set things straight, this is not my invention. However, I've heard about it from different sources at quite different times, so there is definitely a grain of truth in it


You don't take into account the tough competition that you will have to cope with and get rid of when offering your services online. In other words, the "legendary cheap Hindus"

I'm not saying that my girlfriend is stupid, but she thinks Iran is a new treadmill machine by Apple

You can't be all-around savvy. Put shortly, there is always a place for a nanny state in your heart (whether you like it or not)


It is not that meritocracy is bad. The problem with it is that you can't implement it in practice. To do that, you would need an external power (God) that would be able to judge everyone impartially and enforce its judgement upon everyone else. In other words, it is a fantasy, a figment of your ass


That's why it makes such a nice euphemism. You know, war is peace, freedom is slavery, etc

Да вы я вижу клон taikuri13

Как говорится, долг платежом красен. Взял деньги, будь добр вернуть. Только это никак не поможет доказать, что квартира была куплена на личные деньги нашего героя


Так об этом и речь. С чем вы спорите?


И как расписка доказывает, что эти деньги были заработаны вами вне брака?


Но вот ВС РФ с вами не согласен. Почему-то он считает, что вопрос происхождения денежных средств имеет первостепенное значение в рамках данного вида споров. Конкретно, на ваши личные деньги была куплена квартира или на совместно заработанные. И это никак не может лежать "за рамками данного конкретного судебного разбирательства", поскольку данное обстоятельство является основанием для разрешения иска по существу, т.е. в чей собственности должна остаться квартира (или как она должна делиться)

Еще допишу, что только одна эта фраза "любой судья сможет сложить дважды два четыре" выдает в вас дилетанта (но понять вы этого, очевидно, не можете, за отсутствием практического опыта реальных судебных разбирательств и как там все на самом деле устроено). Засим считаю бессмысленным дальнейший диалог с вами на эту тему

Что как раз и будет являться предметом доказывания по делу

Сугубо в рамках исковых требований о признании права собственности на квартиру. О чем, собственно говоря, и свидетельствует приведенная выше практика ВС РФ. И доказывать это придется вам, ибо "каждая сторона должна доказать те обстоятельства, на которые она ссылается как на основания своих требований и возражений". Но это не суть. Вы лучше скажите, как вам расписка в этом деле сможет помочь?

На всякий случай еще напишу, что исковые требования (предмет иска) и его основание -- это слегка разные вещи, которые вы путаете ("суд не может выйти за рамки исковых требований и интересоваться происхождением средств"). Это к вопросу о правовой грамотности

What do you mean by legalizing Bitcoin as a transaction tool?

Maybe, you actually wanted to say that governments refuse to make it into a legal tender on par with national currencies so that everyone could pay taxes with it (since this is basically a definition of legal tender)? That's not going to happen, obviously. However, if Bitcoin along with its brethren is legally defined as property or property rights, digital or otherwise, you should kinda pay a property tax on it (at least, when you sell your coins and book a profit)

Вот в этом месте нашего героя и ждал бы большой сюрпрайз

Положим, он подает в суд иск о признании за ним права собственности по указанному основанию (деньги его личные, к браку отношения не имеющие). Что будет являться предметом доказывания по делу? Правильно, происхождение денежных средств. Герой нашего повествования радостно предъявляет суду расписку, согласно которой он передал денежные средства своей будущей (зачеркнуто) бывшей жене. Однако будет ли являться расписка относимым доказательством по данному делу?

Едва ли. Ведь что доказывает расписка? Она доказывает факт передачи денежных средств от одного лица другому, но не более того. Это нам и суду известно, а женой не отрицается. Что в этом случае делает суд? Разумеется предлагает сторонам представить доказательства источников происхождения средств. И тут вдруг оказывается, что наш герой уже пять лет как безработный и формально сидел на шее у жены (теперь уже бывшей). Жена же легко приносит с работы справку 2-НДФЛ за те же пять лет, где у нее хоть и невысокая, но какая-никакая официальная зарплата. А потом невинно заявляет, что отдавала все деньги мужу. А потом он, гад, взял с нее расписку за ее же деньги

А теперь вопрос к залу. К какому выводу должен прийти суд относительно происхождения средств, на которые была куплена квартира? Чьи деньги, Зин?

In general, you can't separate one thing from the other

What is good for individuals is good for the economy. Economy is a broad term which is made up of households and individual people at the most basic level. Indeed, there are specific cases when certain groups of people are better off at the expense of other people (e.g. elites), and in this case the economy at large suffers too. Whether Bitcoin and its holders can be considered harmful for the economy as a whole is a matter of debate

Do you mean casinos are chasing losses too?

Aside from that, I agree with the poster who claims that you you won't be a welcome guest anymore if you keep on winning. Luck or otherwise, you are generating negative cash flows for the operation, and the best way to stop it is to get rid of you, i.e. to prevent you from entering the premises. I've heard a story about some mathematician who had been traveling from one casino to another and milking them all until the rumors spread and casinos started to ban him in advance. But maybe it's just a legend or a myth

It is not acknowledged because it is irrelevant

These days no one is trying to buy a cup of coffee (a generic phrase or term for daily goods and services) with gold or other tangible assets. It is only with cryptocurrencies which are often considered and referred to as competitors to fiat money in this capacity but which can't actually play such a role that the conflict comes to surface. In other words, if they were not called currencies, and no one referred to them as such, there would be no conflict. It only exists in our mind as an instance of some vague cognitive dissonance

Let's call it the moment of truth

I don't think it is possible in the way you mean it

And I'm not sure either that you would be honestly happier with a genuinely free, anarchic market. Without government oversight (interference, as you call it), we would see an endless stream of scams like Mt. Gox, Cryptsy, BTC-e, to name but just a few. Put simply, it will be very far from "everyone standing on their own two feet". Rather, everyone and his little bro will be on their knees. You can't seriously hope to let the chips fall where they may. There will surely be someone who will take pains to make them fall in their favor


Meritocracy is over-hyped. You will still have to rely on the opinions of other people when gauging someone's merits. In fact, I'm not in the least surprised to see the term actively used as a handy euphemism for nepotism

Возвращаясь в сугубо практическую плоскость, как он собирается отбивать квартиру в суде? Предположим, жена уперлась и не хочет расставаться с мужем (зачеркнуто) квартирой. О чем будет иск в суд, какой у него предмет (например, признание права собственности) и основание (на мои деньги куплено)?

And that's what I'm doing myself and advising everyone else to do

CBDCs can't and won't be a hedge against inflation. If anything, they will most certainly be a major driving force behind it. This reason alone will suffice to obliterate any argument in favor of these centrally-governed currencies before crypto. To claim otherwise would be equal to suggesting to hedge against inflation with regular fiat. This is patently insane. But would it be less insane to suggest to do the same with a CBDC?

Cuz that's a typical pump and dump

As an aside, many people still seem to take such price action without a lot of critical thinking. Most of Bitcoin's value comes through speculation, and to deal with this, you can employ two general strategies. The first is to hold and pray, the second is to try to ride these regular pumps and dumps (aka a buy low sell high stratagem). But no matter what approach you stick to, always remember that a bull run always ends with a bull trap. Still better, if you carve it into your brain lest you forget this trading wisdom at a critical moment

In fact, a losing streak of 19 rolls is nothing out of the ordinary

Whether it is rare or not, depends on how many bets you make per unit of time. If you are using autobet with around 4-5 rolls a second, you should have been expecting 20 losses in a row on x2 payout in reasonable time. To give you a proper perspective, on a 40% win chance I saw a few losing streaks of 30+ rolls, and it happened within a couple months. Ironically, when I was running some tests, I encountered a losing streak of 31 rolls on 37% in just a few hours (though I was not using martingale, just betting the bare minimum over and over again)