1000600+ entries in 0.689s
knotwork: * mircea_popescu wonders if everyone else is alseep/sexting/busy not giving a shit or quite
the contrary, in awed silence at
the sheer genius of
the debate unraveling before
their very eyes.
BTC-Mining: Hence why I asked you here for more info (got satisfied), instead of going on
the forum creating more drama.
BTC-Mining: And I don't like people rushing
things as fast on
the forum without any proof or reasonable evidence.
BTC-Mining: The point being,
there's a difference between made up scenarios you have in your head and "facts" involving direct claims/witnesses.
BTC-Mining: He only indirectly admits it in
this one, but should be sufficient.
BTC-Mining: Not at all... Looks like
theymos is doing something else completly on his side.
BTC-Mining: Well
that's not it... but it's interesting nonetheless...
BTC-Mining: Note
that my previous statement states
that I "recall" seeing such a post, not
that it actually happened.
BTC-Mining: I'd have
to find it, but I even recall
theymos later posting
that he had no actual idea if Nefario did
that, he just
thought he probably did.
BTC-Mining: At least
this is what
the logs afterward seems
to show and he didn't dispute
them.
BTC-Mining: Theymos decided
to screw it and just
tell everyone Nefario used
the users' funds
to pay for his lawyer.
BTC-Mining: He denied
that he used
the users' funds for it and merely claimed
to want
the expenses
to be paid by Bitcoin Global which had money
that was not
the users' funds.
BTC-Mining: He said he wanted Bitcoin Global
to pay for
the lawyer he hired for himself.
mircea_popescu: it's in
those same logs
that nefario spent glbse/bcglobal money w/o asking.
BTC-Mining: One is completly hypothetical and based on nothing.
The other is based on multiple witness accounts.
BTC-Mining: While
the log for
the meeting is not disputed by multiple people being witness of said conversation, which gives a certain credibility and Nefario said what he said in
thos logs.
BTC-Mining: No one has any proof Nefario used any of GLBSE's users funds
to pay for his lawyer.
Theymos just decided it was so.
mircea_popescu: (knowing
that he had spent glbse money w/o permission, which isn't disputed)
BTC-Mining: While what I claim Nefario claimed has a public log not contested by GLBSE shareholders of
their meeting.
BTC-Mining: Like
theymos passing as a fact Nefario was using user's funds solely because "He
thought so"
BTC-Mining: My complain is people passing as fact something
they have no credible claim
to pass it as a fact.
mircea_popescu: i've been so far perfectly unable
to confirm much of it. but who knows.
BTC-Mining: No, but some credible or related people have made
the claims and have seen
them. And I said
the fact was Nefario CLAIMED it, not if he lied or not about it.
mircea_popescu: nefario has
this bad habit of lieing
through his
teeth.
BTC-Mining: Only
that I know of it from Nefario's meeting with
the shareholder, for which
the log is not disputed by any shareholder.
mircea_popescu: hey, so did everyone else. WHETHER
THEY WANT
TO OR NOT!!1
BTC-Mining: As for
the other part where I claim facts, I cannot actually claim direct sighting of
those facts.
BTC-Mining: Misstating fact would be me going right away without further discussion or confirmation on bitcointalk loudmouthing how it is a fact you'll delete all signed
transactions for
the GIGA.ETF rendering
taking backups useless.
mircea_popescu: <strong>mircea_popescu</strong> you know
this as a fact ?
mircea_popescu: <strong>BTC-Mining</strong> If you don't know
the facts, he claims
to have asked
the FSA about it long ago but
they claimed not
to be concerned by anything Bitcoins related. (Probably miscommunication).
Trying
to go legal, he consulted again and was
told
to stop or he could be charged.
BTC-Mining: As such, I might have been wrong. But I never presented it as a fact. Although
technically we're on a public medium in
this channel,
this was a conversation between you and me.
BTC-Mining: be erased),
that data would be kept along signed statement (as in all your data
too, it was a bit of confusion in my understanding), and
then
the part with smickles where it went unanswered if you'd honor signed statements (not very useful if you don't keep your part of
the signed data).
BTC-Mining: Nefario claimed not
to be using user's funds.
Theymos,
thinking "wait, Nefario certainly does not have
the money
to pay for it, he probably used
the users's funds". And went ahead making an official statement
that Nefario used. Now
that's assumption put forward as facts. You stated
the data for
the ETF would be deleted (A general statement which seems
to indicate any data related would
BTC-Mining: Not
that related
transaction data would be kept and compared against
BTC-Mining: I understood it as data would be preserved within
the saved "stat" data.
mircea_popescu: for misstating facts, jumping
to conclusions and other crmes
BTC-Mining: [21:08] <mircea_popescu> mpex isn't designed
to be a sort of glbse
BTC-Mining: [21:07] <BTC-Mining> Keeping
the data aside doesn't cost much logistically.
BTC-Mining: Mea culpa I guess. You were
talking about how it's unreasonable
to keep
the data indefinitly. I understood it as all
the data. I pointed out I was annoyed by
this.
smickles: last 1000 lines, every
time mircea_popescu said delete
smickles: 04:46 < mircea_popescu> i didn't say i delete all data lol. i said
the shares are discarded as worthless
smickles: 04:37 < mircea_popescu> what, am i going
to log into
twitter and delete
tweets ?
smickles: 04:35 < mircea_popescu> i'm not about
to delete f.giga.etf entries from
the historical records.
smickles: 04:01 < mircea_popescu> you were
talking about "data being deleted". a customer wanting
to push a claim would be in no worse position
today, on
the 5th of december 2012 or 2015
smickles: 02:18 < mircea_popescu> BTC-Mining i can't delete "all data" man.
the signed stats will forever exist.
smickles: he's going
to quote you saying something
mircea_popescu: i didn't say i delete all data lol. i said
the shares are discarded as worthless
BTC-Mining: When you said you'd delete ALL data for
the ETF, I understood it as ALL
the data. Including signed
transactions...
mircea_popescu: the
transaction (in general,
the historical) data was never in discussion.
BTC-Mining: And as such will keep
the
transactions data for
the ETF.
BTC-Mining: So you need
to keep all
transactions data for
that, as proof we signed
them at a later date.
smickles: wow, you have written policy, don't you, I've gone
thru
this exact proceeding
mircea_popescu: II. MPEx reviews complaint. either it has or it has not ulterior
transactions signed by person
mircea_popescu: either person has or has not a stat
to back
their complaint. if
they do not, complaint is invalid.
BTC-Mining: Not as in negociable instruments. Receivable has offering any proof of ownership later
than
the date it was issued.
mircea_popescu: but
the chain of dispute is very simple and efficient. let me explain it.
mircea_popescu: what's not receivable mean ?
they're not negotiable instruments, no.
BTC-Mining: So you would,
theorically, need a database backup
to be used in a claim. Signed "STAT" statements are not receivable.
mircea_popescu: no more, no less.
this is
the most
they could do,
too.
mircea_popescu: signed stats do exactly what
they do :
they show
that at
time X you had Y.
BTC-Mining: Meaning you need
the actually
trading statements
to identify legitimate holders.
smickles: I know for a fackt
that mircea_popescu has a cron job of rm -rf /home/user/mpex/db.sql
BTC-Mining: Aye, but
that means signed "STAT" statements are not useful at all
to prove ownership of anything at any point other
than
the moment it was created.
mod6: haha, i was afk,
then scrolled back. was
thinking "didn't we just have
this conversation an hour ago?!"
mircea_popescu: one'd not give a shit about
the former, and even keep most of
them off
the active db cause mpex doesn't need
to review
trade #5 at any point in november 2012
mircea_popescu: conceivably, one'd care
to keep
these later
trimmed seeing how
they're pounded possibly 1000s of
times a second
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining
think for a moment, logically. in any possible implementation
there'd be some dbs which hold records of what has happened. such as, who
transfered what
to whom, in sale or otherwise.
BTC-Mining: Mircea, but
those
twitter/IRC log does not contain who
the shares are sent
to.
mod6: that was a looooong way
to get a short distance
smickles: mircea_popescu: do be sure
to include my witty remark if you can :)
mircea_popescu: contact everyone on irc list
to
the right ask
them
to wipe selected lines from
their logs ?
mircea_popescu: what, am i going
to log into
twitter and delete
tweets ?
BTC-Mining: I understood it as you were going
to delete ALL data...
smickles: it's still a good idea
to copy
the db dump on dec 1
BTC-Mining: You're going
to KEEP
the
trading data?
mircea_popescu: i'm not about
to delete f.giga.etf entries from
the historical records.
mircea_popescu: you for some reason seem
to be mixing historical data with active data.
smickles: i
think something flew over your head
BTC-Mining: The first person never sold his 900 units and
the other
transfered
the units from one account
to
the other
to get his 10 statements.