Yes it still 270k , that's a lot of lawyer hours and they might become open to the same penalties in other jurisdictions. If you calculate times 100nations and an increased volume plus the PR hit, it's best to delegate to legal.
I am totally against all things Bitcoin, however, it's not coined exclusive in the us and the constitution is not immutable, else it would be a very bad document that can't get with the times.
Anything in the constitution is not canonical forever.
> Anything in the constitution is not canonical forever.
It is, however, canonical until amended or SCOTUS interprets it away.
Constitutionally, it appears quite clear Arizona can't do this currently, and the law as a result would almost certainly be immediately stayed and struck down if passed.
No, that wouldn't work. The gold printout would be worth its weight in gold, not the value in Bitcoin of the data printed on it. If you used $1 worth of gold to print one BTC worth $40k, the recipient would only be legally required to count it as $1 towards your debt.
Who says that? This thread seems to be full of arm chair lawyers as another comment just told me that there is no gold standard since 1970.
Whatever, the thing I want to buy with the particular coin would immediately reduce 40.000 fold in price. That might be illegal in some sense, if contracts are bound to stay valid across fluctuation, but that's basically how markets work.
In the end it's all numbers on paper anyway, so I don't see the immediate implication, except that a state is supposed not to go on a lone run.
The gold would be legal tender. Doesn't matter what's written on it; I can doodle artwork on a $10 bill and claim it's worth $1,000 because my art is awesome, but people aren't required to accept it as anything more than $10 towards a debt.
> another comment just told me that there is no gold standard since 1970
"On 15 August 1971, the United States terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold, effectively bringing the Bretton Woods system to an end and rendering the dollar a fiat currency."
You keep talking about gold coins on the one hand and the US Dollar on the other hand. Sorry if you are loosing me here.
Which dictionary defines Gold Coin as Dollar, in which lemma, and how can it predict and continuisly update the exchange rate if there is no authority to poll?
The United States Constitution does the following:
* It permits the Federal government to coin money and regulate its value.
* It specifically forbids states from making anything other than gold and silver coins legal tender. (This part is why Arizona can't declare Bitcoin as legal tender.)
Money and legal tender are related, but not the same concept.
The Legal Tender Act of 1862 (an act of the Federal government) added paper notes as legal tender. Constitutionally, states could not do this, but the Feds can. Due to the Supremacy Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause) this law cannot be overridden by the states; they cannot pass a law making paper notes not legal tender.
Gold coins are still legal tender. However, their value as metal is now massively more than their value as tender, so no one uses them as such. For example, a $20 gold coin sold in 2002 for $7,590,020; metal-wise it's worth about $2k, and currency-wise it's worth what it says on the coin, $20. You could use that coin to pay a $20 debt, but it would be a bad decision.
(You could come to an agreement with your creditor to accept it for any value to satisfy the debt, but your creditor is not required to do so.)
Arizona can a accept taxes in sheep if they want. What they cannot do is require their citizens to accept sheep when they want to be paid in USD. Same deal with Bitcoin.
Prosperity, low-interest rates, wider mortgage product offerings, and easy to access credit cause
pricing bubbles.
Now, forces that make a housing bubble pop include a downturn in the economy, a rise in interest rates, as well as a drop in demand.
We've had all that and credit is getting more expensive.
Theres only so many people who can live somewhere or buy to rent scheme spaces, developers building as much and fast they can and you can't renew all the older buildings.
In the end, follow the money, all the stake holders and you'll find it is always universal greed at the root.
I am not so sure that building houses for non business purposes should be handled so liberally.
Yes I've considered leaving many times. I only have alimony, not child support(no kids), so failing to pay isn't serious enough to revoke my passport. Depending on how things work out, I may have to retire overseas.
I have seen this often recently, sass providers claiming they are open source because they have free trials, can be rented or worst, because they have an API.
Indeed looks like they're after some organic traffic.
Similar shenanigans with other freemium products, where the bare minimum is free, but makes you dependent on shopping for the costly features.
It's extremely hard. To compare pricing, especially with concurrent users etc. I have to say, adobe is one of the most transparent in that regard, it's very clear what you will get.
I am a fierce anti conspiracy person, but this covid situation is having me thinking.
They say natural resistance is better or equal than from the vaccine, everyone apart from anti vaxxers like Djokovic has had a shot or two or three, there's no herd immunity or herd protection
Can someone explain the math to me?
Also people said the regular flu does not exist anymore, give or take, because everyone is wearing masks. Nothing could be further from the truth, full family had flu twice now, me three times(never had that before in my.life, once a year max was normal) and I see the regular flu wave still existing. I haven't had covid that I know of, did tests and am vaccinated.
> They say natural resistance is better or equal than from the vaccine
Who are "they" and what exactly are "they" saying? I think there is a consensus that even if you had the disease, it's wise choice to get vaccinated. Protection from vaccination and recovery is better than protection from only one of them, as far as I understand it.
> Can someone explain the math to me?
What math?
> Also people said the regular flu does not exist anymore
Seasonal flu will of course continue to be a thing. But restrictions obviously meant that last years flu season was kept low in many places around the world. This however means that there could be a worse wave coming this year (and it has happened too in many places - we are in the flu season in the wintery part of the world now). In places with good mask adherence, no big public events and so on, obviously ALL respiratory diseases will have a harder time spreading. But these restrictions are - hopefully - temporary, The flu will be fine.
Can't speak for the whole world, but in Canada my experience is that they're not testing for the flu anymore. Only COVID. In years past if you went to the doctor during flu season they'd do a throat swab for flu. Now it's only for COVID.
I know lots of people who were sick but only tested for COVID. One of my friends was out of work for a month with a bacterial infection they missed for 2+ weeks because they only tested for COVID....
I never heard about testing for flu in the past either, except when admitted to hospital with severe disease. There is "monitoring" i.e. some random statistical testing only as far as I know.
The pigs realize more than you'd think, their moms know when you're about to castrate the babies and they remember it, too.
When the slaughterhouse van comes along, they can feel something is wrong, this is, before the van is even visible. They might remember other pigs not coming back from the ride or something, but to kill another animal to save the human animal is not very nice.
To try to be nice is to rally against nature itself. If you strive to be nice then you are automatically at odds with the driving force of nature. You want to make the world a nice place? Then by definition there can be no losers and if there are no losers there is no evolution. If there is no evolution, there is no life, only a slow descent bck to maximum entropy. So the ultimate question is not "do you want to be nice?" but "do you prefer life over non life?". Is the pain of existence worth it? some say yes, some say no, both are valid opinions. Personally I say yes. But I wouldn't blame a person for being anti life and working actively to destroy it.
I get it if it's a vegan argument or something, but come on, we harvest pigs on an industrial scale. We can use their organs however we want because we are the apex predator, that's just life.
