This depends entirely on your local laws and the kinds of loans banks offer.
In most places, you can only get recourse mortgages. You will be liable for the rest of the mortgage, if the value of the house drops so much that selling it doesn't cover the remaining debt.
House values dropping a lot is something that happens fairly rarely, but it tends to happen exactly during the times when you are most likely to be unable to pay your mortgage (recessions, industry downturns, etc.)
Even in recourse mortgages, banks tend to write off the remainder owed. Especially since it is cheap for them to offer to forgive the remainder to shorten the eviction process and prevent damage to the home. At least historically
Of course, if it's not your primary home, they don't need you to waive your rights to stay in the property.
>working bid/ask spread when factories buy or sell on the market to make pricing dynamic and realistic
Does it deliver on the "realistic" part? My experience with most models is they make something that technically fulfills the ask, but often in a way that doesn't really capture my intent (this is with regular Claude Code though).
Yep, garbage in garbage out, I had some additional specs beyond the summary above, everything requires refinement as well, but honestly I never thought I was going to have a simcity/civlike clone in a couple weekends that's reasonably playable.
>The point of Bitcoin is to avoid exactly that sort of trust relationship, otherwise use the banking system.
Most participants don't care about this. For almost everyone, the point of Bitcoin is to go up. As long as they can find enough buyers that also believe it will go up, the rest is optional. Especially if it's temporary, for a one-time migration.
In practice, what you really need is consensus. As long as enough of the important participants agree, that's how it will be.
And since there are millions of identical copies of the entire pre-attack ledger out there, this should not be that difficult.
Potential future buyers might reevaluate whether this whole thing has any monetary value, but that's a separate concern. Bitcoin's market value was never about the technical details.
I'm not sure you fully grasped what was said in the parent comment. It literally does not matter anymore if we can all agree on the previous blocks, it would be impossible to identify who owns which wallet anymore. The seed phrase would be useless.
Ah, then yeah, in that case, it'd be basically over.
Maybe large exchanges would try to step in to make a fresh chain based on their combined account data, and just drop the people relying on self-custody. But I doubt the market would go for it - the uncertainty would crash it hard enough that it would never recover.
Yeah, it makes it sound like your attention is given as an act of charity. A lot of online discourse tends to be very "creator-first" framed, rather than "audience-first".
reply