1013200+ entries in 0.707s
Bugpowder: :mircea_popescu no cause usagi came in and bought a few shares at .99 after I sold... I lost 1.8 bitcoins on
the
trade and I'm very upset
assbot: CPA [1@0.1BTC] paid: 0.00569688 BTC. Last price: 0.04 BTC. Capital gain: -0.06 BTC.
Total: -0.05430312 BTC. (-54.3%)
copumpkin: see,
that's why I hate it when people
talk about martingale gambling here, cause it's silly
to use
the inferior meaning of martingale when
the superior one is way better
assbot: Requesting data from GLBSE (might
take a while, also might return fishy results as it does not account for splits etc).
PsychoticBoy: see I dont get
the point of showing
that crap on
tv
mircea_popescu: jcpham it's very simple
to explain what goes on in irc : we're applying ito calculus
to differential geometry
Diablo-D3: PsychoticBoy: very few
TV shows make me want
to murder people
mircea_popescu: Diablo-D3 from
the back im an ass man. from
the front not so much
PsychoticBoy: little girls, just watch
toddlers and
tiara`s on
TLC. Pedophile on national
TV
Diablo-D3: I mean, he clearly wants
to be
the little girl, and mircea_popescu clearly wants a little girl....
PsychoticBoy: 1K, 7K whats
the difference, its a awfull lot of cash
jcpham: i can never understand what
the shit is happening in
this channel
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: oh,
the length is what I expected it
to be
copumpkin: mircea_popescu:
that's a different color
than what I expected
jcpham: until you brought up
the penis
jcpham: i was going
to say
that i
thought mircea_popescu was actually female
PsychoticBoy: I dont listen
to
trolls I dont really care, but
the fact is,
the NAV is decreased from
the start
copumpkin: jcpham: I'm curious
to see mircea_popescu's penis
too, but it is inappropriate
to ask
mircea_popescu: Diablo-D3 i recall reading in
the forums you bought back way over nav. is it
true ?
copumpkin: jcpham: I do
too, but I don't see why it is
PsychoticBoy: initial value was a lot higher
than it is
today
jcpham: i see
this question posed a lot
Diablo-D3: am I bad manager for buying half
the company back?
mircea_popescu: why do peopkle feel compelled
to insult what
they don't understand ?
mircea_popescu: Do you
think
the result from a IRC script calculator is evidence for what exactly?
PsychoticBoy: <PsychoticBoy> OMFG why, why, WHY? keep ppl
taking btc from investors, because its a fucking easy scam, omg 70K$ in a few months, I wish I
thought of it, Oh damn I am no scammer
Bugpowder: just like
the Reddit gone wild
takedown piece
Bugpowder: I can just see Anderson Cooper doing a story on bitcoins and porn or some stupid shit like
that
Bugpowder: I'm
talking about some IT department filtering/blocking content at my end, not
the site getting KO'd off
the internet
PsychoticBoy: OMFG why, why, WHY? keep ppl
taking btc from investors, because its a fucking easy scam, omg 70K$ in a few months, I wish I
thought of it, Oh damn I am no scammer
mircea_popescu: (and also,
that i happen
to run
the most popular blog in romanian, and
this means, romanians being a little schadenfreunde-y,
that various nitwits have been
trying
to get it offline for maybe 5 years now ?)
mircea_popescu: are you aware
that site was
there for oh, 3 years by now ? 4 ?
Bugpowder: wouldn't want
to be locked out of
trading for
the whole work day.
Bugpowder: I
think
the porn actually is a bit of an issue. I wish MPEX were on a domain name
that did not also host porn, just in case polimedia somehow gets blocked at my work internet because of it someday.
mircea_popescu: "You must obtain a signed letter of holding from Nefario as a shareholder, or pay a deposit into escrow if you are a potential investor. I really do not care if you decide not
to invest with me as a result of
this decision."
OneEyed: EskimoBob: I don't understand all
this problem around porn. Is porn illegal where you live, or do you have any evidence
that
the porn hosted
there is illegal?
OneEyed: jurov: he already has
this kind of information on Ce, it's not a big deal
to double
the storage for it, it's only a few bytes per message
jurov: *to have ->
to store
jurov: of course... but
to fix
this issue mpex would need
to have hash of every Cs
to compare against
OneEyed: (except
that you have
to
trust him not
to pretend you submitted
the same signed message
twice right now)
jurov: OneEyed,
then maybe it would be best
to propose some sane implementation.
OneEyed: so I'm quite familiar with
the "trust" problem at hand (+, I've been using PGP
then GPG for ~20 years, since Phil Zimmermann's first releases
that I got from Usenet)
OneEyed: And I did my PhD
thesis a long
time ago on distributed systems, and worked for a long
time on
trust issues in
those systems (including protection against replay attacks, byzantine failures, dos, …)
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: no, I have just read
the FAQ, 20 BTC would eat much more
than what I would gain, since I don't have much
to
trade (I just bought a couple hundreds BTC
to play with)
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: if answers are signed,
then you cannot pretend an order never arrived, and if duplicates are not accepted, you cannot pretend an order was submitted
twice, and everyone's safe :)
mircea_popescu: the point isn't
to make a system
that makes human retardedness impossible,
that's
too hard a problem.
mircea_popescu: OneEyed
then he could claim o really, peanuts and buttersquash w/e.
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: yeah,
that's why you can't
trust
the date, I'm with you on
this one, it makes no sense
mircea_popescu: this is a largely
theoretical point, he's proposing somebody claim
that i made a fake duplicate.
mircea_popescu: jurov you can re-encrypt
the signed stat and
that is accepted.
jurov: isn't
that done already? i
tried
that sending same encrypted STAT
twice, even
that was rejected
OneEyed: No need
to ever *read*
the content
mircea_popescu: actually, it says in
the gpg spec
the sigdate is not
to be
trusted.
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: you don't have
to!
The signature date just ensures
that signed messages won't be
the same, by construction
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: no, you don't need
to add anything
OneEyed: Sure, but you insist on security, and
that's a good
thing.
This would add security
through forced
trust (ability
to produce individual messages) without any drawback.
mircea_popescu: and in general i want
to mandate as little as possible. having 1`000`000 contracts include an extra field
mircea_popescu: understand,
there's a lot more at stake here
than just "what retardedness i could do".
mircea_popescu: except, in
the scenario you describe, i just negrate you in
the wot, can your accnt and whoopdedoo, you've managed what.
OneEyed: Anyway,
thanks for
the discussion,
that was enlightening :)
OneEyed: Right now, you would be able
to produce only one Cs. By mandating different messages, you would be protected :)
OneEyed: I sign one buy order for 1 share,
then submit it 10
times
OneEyed: Let's assume I'm unsure it is wise
to buy "foobar" at 1.0BTC/share
mircea_popescu: but i mean, what is
the false claim im protecting myself from ? seems a rather narrow case.
OneEyed: and you could not forge
that
OneEyed: That would protect you from false claims, since you could produce
the various signed messages with
the repeated commands
OneEyed: You could also refuse
to accept
the same Cs and answer with "duplicate message error"
mircea_popescu: i could mandate it, but i don't see
the benefit sufficient.
mircea_popescu: the fact of
the matter is, you can just
trail it on as it is now
mircea_popescu: well, it's not a bad ideea
to have an uid from a safety pov
OneEyed: (and protect you against false accusations of having replayed a message if
the customers submits several
times
the same Cs)
OneEyed: In fact (and I agree,
that was not my original idea),
the UID would protect
the customer from you :)
OneEyed: And pretend he reused
the same Cs, when he didn't
OneEyed: *You* could replay
the message
then
OneEyed: Ok,
that's fine indeed. It means
that
the customer has
to
take care of not leaking Cs
though.
OneEyed: Ok, so you identify Ce for uniqueness (with a checksum or whatever),
to avoid replay, right?
mircea_popescu: attacker can
try repeat Ce or Ce', but he just gets an error
mircea_popescu: Ce will be accepted once. customer can re-sign
the Cs and make Ce', which will also be accepted, once.
mircea_popescu: legitimate user makes contract, call it C. he clearsigns it, make Cs. he
then encrypts it with mpex key, making Ce
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: so how do you distinguish between
two identical orders and a replayed order
then?
OneEyed: (because
the encryption happens afterwards, and can be done since
the MPEX key is not secret)
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: why so? Do you check
the signature date and require
that it is unique?