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.)
>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).
>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.
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.
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.
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".
"Local history" is a very popular feature in the JetBrains IDEs (just search HN comments), and I remember similar tools appearing on HN several times in the past (for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784238), so clearly there is demand for such functionality (or at least was in the past, when almost all code edits were manual).
Yeah, but that's not the same, as most readers will just skip over that. What I said is more similar to HN's monthly "who's hiring" threads or "what are you working on" threads. Like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46937696. I find those much more interesting.
I think the problem with such places is, they just become a dump for self-promotion by people who otherwise don't participate at all. The opposite of an actual community. That's why even reddit used to have a 10-to-1 rule of thumb about posts like that (which would be very easily gamed today).
Even if you trust the intentions of whoever you're giving your data to, you may not trust their ability to keep it safe from data breaches. Those happen all the time.
Copilot plan limits are however "per prompt", and prompts that ask the agent to do a lot of stuff with a large context are obviously going to be more expensive to run than prompts that don't.
Well they are doing the same to website owners who rely on human visitors for their revenue streams.
Both scraping and on-demand agent-driven interactions erode that. So you could look at people doing the same to them as a sort of poetic justice, from a purely moral standpoint at least.