fosap

>since they tolerate it in the leaders that align with their views.

Which one?

Please RFA.

"The reduction they saw was confined to households that did actually have access to a car"

"They discovered that tightening these laws had no detectable effects on the rate of first and second children".

Also, if i understand it correctly, you have about 50 quasi experiments, one for each state.

Not being depended on craftsman for small things like fixing your toilet safes you a lot of stress in my experience. Not problems with appointments, no waiting, no arguing in case if improper work, no other people in your home.

But you can't order Pizza (or drugs) with Bitcoin anymore. And I don't see much of use case of a currency that can't do that. Without adoption a fiat currency like bitcoin is not worth anything.

Even gold can do that better.

Inside of one coin hashpower makes the winner, because the chain with the most accumulated difficulty wins. It makes sense to transfer this to the relation of different coins. currently BTC wins, but if miners would stick to bch this might change.

It does not change anything substantial about the web today. It will just be a saner output format for compilers than javascript. Unless you write compilers, nothing changes.

It does not matter weather your language compiles to JS or WASM, and it does not matter what the browser executes.

No, is not like that. Both the calf to the cow and bch (bcc ?) to btc are "intrinsic". They are the result of the nature of these things. Not gifts, not accidents, not abritrary.

And coinbase keeps the bch (as they announced), so the bird analogy does not fit at all.

>Coinbase can do anything they want!

That's no how laws work. Not even remotely. Thankfully.

Consider you order somebody (X) to transport your pregnant cow. At the destination the cow arrives. It's not pregnant anymore and X refuses to give you the calf because... well, because he can do anything he wants.

That's theft.

Math is not about proofing something, or creating a as big as possible collection of lemmas. Math is about creating structures that can use as tools to solve problems. And problem solving is a task done by humans, so math is only useful if humans understand it and have a intuition.

>The real question seems to be legally whether BCH is a gift to those owning BTC or those possessing it. In

Bch is not a gift. Who should have gifted it? Who is the previous owner? How did the previous owner aquire it? It is a "fructus" of btc. And that belongs to the owner.

This right can be signed away, with life estate or usufructus. But that's a big deal. That can't be somewho implied in a sentence hidden somewhere in a long ToS.

>You don't own Bitcoin if you don't control the keys.

That's wrong, and obviously so. That concept is "possession" and not "ownership".

What they write in their ToS doesn't matter, it does not change fundamentals of porperty law. (Well, as every legal argument on the internet it depends on your jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the coinbase, as coinbase resides in multiple)

Edited my comment to make it clearer.

There is a difference between ownership and possion. Technically (in the meaning "how it is realized in computer code") bcc is given to the person possessing btc. But by the law the owner is entitled to the profits of a thing. But coinbase does not own my coins, it merely posses them.

Of course. The Bitcoins are still mine, even i keep them in a coinbase wallet. (ownsership vs perssesion). Now every btc owner gets bcc. The owner is me, not coinbase. I gave the persession of by btc to coinbase to trade them eventually, not to give up ownership. And as the owner that never 1) gave away usufruct I'm entiled to all profits from them. See the share/divident analogy.

1) At last not legaly binding, that had to be there at the very least in red flashing letters, possibly even then it would have been void.

Maybe we can use the brute force of a "math superoptimizer" to "compress" it to something far more reasonable. If we teach said opimizer what structures are well understood by humans we might actually understand at last parts.