1000800+ entries in 0.632s
mircea_popescu: you know, like if you don't make
the mortgage payments cause your cat was sick
BTC-Mining: That's
the
thing. You'd be disregarding all possible laws Nefario might want
to comply
to by selecting
that 5 minute delay.
BTC-Mining: Yes, but
the delays should be set accordingly
to
the expected
time it will
take
them
to do so, and you usually add an extra on
that in case.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining yes,
that's
the principle of
the
thing. when someone says
they do something and
then
they don't do it,
they get some
time before being cut off
BTC-Mining: You're unilaterally
taking a decision
to void claims because Nefario does not release information fast enough for you, regardless of it it will be released or not.
copumpkin: thought all
that drinking was kind of stupid
mircea_popescu: for instance patrickharnett is getting axed
tomorrow on
the dot.
BTC-Mining: Because Nefario DOES NOT WANT
to simply pull
the database's fields and send
that.
BTC-Mining: So on
that account, I
think delays should be set as such
to allow
the benefit of doubt
that Nefario intends
to repay.
mircea_popescu: but i stil lfail
to see how
the whole month of november is an unreasonable allowance
to fucking pull some fields from a db and send
them
to peopkle
mircea_popescu: yes man, which is why we weren't having
this conversation on
the 15th
BTC-Mining: But
to my surprise, balances actually started
to be paid.
BTC-Mining: So was I. I could almost have expected
to write it off almost right away.
copumpkin: I wonder what he's doing with all
the money
mircea_popescu: people seem more religious
than business-oriented in btc.
BTC-Mining: You're
treating it like every other Bitcoin scam with
the equivalent delays before declaring it lost.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining
the sticking point is
the reasonable part of more reasonable.
BTC-Mining: So why not have a more reasonable delay, on general principal. Balances have been partially paid out. Nefario communicated with
the shareholder his intent
to not act upon
their vote if it was not lawful
to do so.
mircea_popescu: copumpkin paulson in 2nd place,
that must have gone over well
mircea_popescu: and afaik at least one glbse failure was already resolved, without protest for
that matter.
mircea_popescu: i wouldn't erase
the data right away on general principle.
BTC-Mining: Eh, I
thought so
too. 1 month is just a
token period. You'd erase
the data right away if it wouldn't raise protest. You already consider it gone.
mircea_popescu: is
the guy here defending himself ? no, he's not. is
the company still standing ? no, it was dissolved (retroactively).
BTC-Mining: I does not prevents him from disclosing
the information.
BTC-Mining: He got a scammer
tag because
Theymos was a shareholder and got screwed in
this because Nefario doesn't recognize
their decisive power because he claims he can't honor requests
that would make him break
the law.
BTC-Mining: I would have no problem accepting it if I had agreed
the delay was reasonable, and waited
the whole of
that delay.
mircea_popescu: nefario went silent, before
this.
their board broke apart.
mircea_popescu: but see, glbse.com going offline is really
the absolute last signal of dissapearance.
BTC-Mining: I'm contesting
that
this decision is appropriate for right now.
copumpkin: little did you know
that Chaang-Noi was a hedge fund manager
BTC-Mining: GLBSE.com went offline. You decided
to, right now, allow 1 month.
BTC-Mining: We didn't wait a month,
that's
the
thing.
BTC-Mining: "[23:25] <mircea_popescu> we waited a month, and you are saying "well we should wait six cause
this guy is slow""
BTC-Mining: I'm not contesting it 1 month after. I'm contesting
the fact you chose 1 month from day 1.
smickles: and if you disagree on first principles, one of you is a
turnip
smickles: mircea_popescu: you'd only do it back
to first principles, not ad infinitum
mircea_popescu: we waited a month, and you are saying "well we should wait six cause
this guy is slow"
BTC-Mining: Not by reviewing
them later as: "Well we went on waiting 10 years, why not 100?"
mircea_popescu: more constructively, do you have something better
than
that, i'd want
to know
BTC-Mining: No. Because it has
to be set as a hard limit.
mircea_popescu: that's kinda absurd, we'll never be done if we go
that way
smickles: BTC-Mining: do you contest
this 'order of magnitude' argument?
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining yes,
they will be slight, by
today's measure. cause
today
the scent is still fresh. but in 9 years it will seem reasonable
to wait 100 rather
than 10.
mircea_popescu: smickles degree of magnitute more
than
the smallest contractual breach
BTC-Mining: In 10 years, odds of data remaining gets slight, especially as
the storage on which
the data was is probably destroyed and unless some guy (who never gave news or disclosed
this date), kept moving it
to new storage as
time went by,
the data would be lost. Which is expectable and probable. Why would
the guy keep
to back it up if he's not disclosing it?
mircea_popescu: smickles well we agreed on principle but not on
the actual interval so far.
mircea_popescu: i don't claim it's perfect or anything, should carry
the day
mircea_popescu: still doesn't indicate why six months is more reasonable
than six weeks
smickles: mircea_popescu: lets do
this logically, you made
the first positive claim right?
mircea_popescu: if nothing happens in am onth, better wait
two. if nothing happens in
two better wait six
mircea_popescu: cause it's purely arbitrary. yes,
the chances
to get something decrease with
time. so, if nothing happens in one week, better wait a month.
mircea_popescu: in principle
the same could be said of 10 years vs 1000 years.
BTC-Mining: Because it's perfectably expectable for information
to be released in more
than a month, while it is not in 10 years without any news.
mircea_popescu: some
time limit will have
to be enforced. why
this rather
than
that ?
mircea_popescu: we only got into
that cause smickles brought it up, but otherwise,
the point is more along
the lines of,
mircea_popescu: and at any rate
the whole involuntary bailee point is mostly academic, it just rehashes
the obvious "tough
tits" line
mircea_popescu: anyway, even
the example as given is simplified, because it gonflates giga and glbse into A.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining
there's no limitation
that you can only be ib if you can divest in a manner convenient
to all partsi nvolved
BTC-Mining: To be
the involuntary bailee, you'd have
to be holding
the claim from C
to A. Where you could
throw out
the claim or quite simply give it
to it's actual beneficiary.
BTC-Mining: No. B indeed (re)leased office space
to C.
mircea_popescu: while C may be entitled
to
that claim, it's really not much of B's business.
mircea_popescu: this makes B
the involuntary bailee of C's claim, because B never leased
to C any such
thing as "future claims
to
the office space conditional on A's performance in court"
mircea_popescu: smickles no, it's more complicated. person A leases a building
to person B. person B leases office space
to C. person A is arrested and
the building confiscated. C demands from B
that B ensures C gets
the office space at a future
time if
the building is returned
to A.
smickles: assumes
there was not a force majeure clause in
the lease
smickles: is mircea_popescu still responsible
to provide an office
to
that person?
smickles: mircea_popescu leased an office in a building,
the building is
taken out by a
tornado
BTC-Mining: The claims were sold
to me. I'm
the current holder. You are not. You are
the issuer. You cannot be
the unvoluntary bailee of your own issue.
mircea_popescu: it has in practice been replaced by a vague sort of claim
thing.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining because
the vehicle for my ownership was
the glbse share
smickles: wait, do we really consider having stuff associated with your glbse account ownership? (maybe off
topic)
BTC-Mining: How are you
the unvoluntary bailee of
those other
things?
smickles: BTC-Mining: didn't you claim
to have bought a bunch of f.giga when glbse went down?
BTC-Mining: You are not an unvoluntary bailee. You received
the assets of your own will and held
them of your own will for
the purpose of selling claims
to it. You never received
them against your will. In fact,
they're currently
TAKEN AWAY from you against your own will. Not forced upon you.
mircea_popescu: conveniently BTC-Mining is
taking
the other side, i'm not sure i'd prefer anyone else for it.