log☇︎
102700+ entries in 0.845s
trinque: that amounts to "I just want to" and saying the world is somebody else's problem
asciilifeform: it is because mircea_popescu invited me. and i only stayed because he works with me on planeteering tech.
asciilifeform: if anyone forgot why i'm here,
asciilifeform: if i'm an imbecile, i will remain one whether 'looking like it' or not.
asciilifeform: i cannot speak for others, but i'm not particularly concerned with what i look like.
asciilifeform: i bet ninjashitgun & co are rubbing their cocks raw with glee reading the last 3 wks of logz.
asciilifeform: i dun evenhave a face.
jurov: well, i feel i'd lose face either way
trinque: I couldn't agree more with that.
asciilifeform: and not only i have nfi, but i sorta wish i had taken vacation to the jungle for past 3 wks.
asciilifeform: jurov: i have nfi.
asciilifeform: (e.g., i never saw the ' mircea_popescu ought to personally eat the expense ' angle )
jurov: re:2 i was being IRONIC. and waited whether you take the bait
mircea_popescu: i'm sorry, is what i want ?
jurov: and i actually mentioned the "good faith" question like 3 times in two days. and i don't like to repeat myself. were not for hanbot, it would be well safely buried in the logs by now.
mircea_popescu: let me point out to you that bitbet came down over my realisation that this is how you lot think. stop fucking thinking like this before i have to cut more heads.
mircea_popescu: jurov i want you to explain your notion of "some precedent". use clear language and be sure you can stick with its meaning.
asciilifeform: i like mircea_popescu because he's a fella who tips pencils.
asciilifeform: anyway i'm not personally mentally invested in any of this, and won't shed so much as nanoliter of tear .
jurov: hanbot actually, i was NOT writing it in that context, it was in context of whether mispayments were ever considered against future bet winnings. so you did yourself disservice by connecting these things, and it's actually interesting you keep doing it
mircea_popescu: at least if i throw money at whores i get a dance.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: on this i must agree. it ~was~ ill-specified
mircea_popescu: hanbot i;m no longer going to be using it, no.
asciilifeform: hanbot: i did not invent it
mircea_popescu: i'm not however your motherfather, to support you no matter where your head goes.
asciilifeform: i suppose this is yet another thing that we never specified.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform get lost with the bs. i'm going to do your job ? not fucking interested. you wanna talk to him, do, enjoy, who am i to get in the way of idiocy.
mircea_popescu: but otherwise i've just nullrouted log.b-a
mircea_popescu: anyone wants something to me, say it when i'm around.
mircea_popescu: i'm not going to read further logs, at all, for as long as nubbins` can speak into them.
mircea_popescu: jesus fuck look at that crap. i'm done reading this log, wtf, still with the idiots talking ?
asciilifeform: was i?
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 18:20:49; asciilifeform: note that i am not arguing that this is a moral obligation
jurov: how do i "use established good faith thusly", again?
asciilifeform: and yes, i fully expect rabbi to say that ~everything is rabbinical question~ aha.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform your notion that anything but "religious matters" exists is quaint and endearing, i guess, but of no practical value or import.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: i argued self into the position that the original system was ill-defined
asciilifeform: i;ll take the ball-peen plox
asciilifeform: danielpbarron: as i understand, it was proposed as to one possible solution to formalizing the promise made by bbet when a bet is made.
asciilifeform: now, i can see running a mixer from pure profit motive, like an atheist might run a kosher butcher shop
jurov: so, what is he going to test next time? and how would i know hw wont decide do to bill it against me?
asciilifeform: ( i still have nfi WHY he send a 0fee ! )
jurov: hanbot i want first and foremost to clarify the point that mp, by mucking with zerofee tx, left the car unlocked overnight in dark alley
hanbot: jurov if i got plastered and proceeded to crash my car into your house last week and paid for the damages without question, and this week i'm carjacked and hit your house again, you may not use the fact that i happily paid for the former incident as proof that i should pay for the latter, and you may *especially* not attempt to use it as proof while complaining about my "bad faith"
jurov: well, then i utterly don't get it
hanbot: jurov> kakobrekla hanbot is trying to explain to everyone << no dude. i'm trying to point out to YOU that YOU are abusing established good faith.
kakobrekla: too bad i realize this only now, otherwise would have made such error more often.
kakobrekla: and im trying to explain that i should be paying for everything im liable for and he should be paying for everything he is liable for.
kakobrekla: and if i delete the bitbet code is mp going to do half the coding?
nubbins`: i think she had a quote somewhere about 0-fee tx expectations too
asciilifeform: i would blame him if the next day he still says that i owe 100.
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 15:43:19; asciilifeform: tomorrow i trip over a cable, fall on a button, accidentally fire pistol, the bullet hits another button, sends him 90 btc.
kakobrekla: the thing is, i was in charge of x, he was in charge of y. a part of y was 'delivery of bitcoin to winning addresses' which, by mp claims, was done wrongfully (hence the charge)
kakobrekla: im aware of that one i just dont see it here
kakobrekla: asciilifeform there was 1 tx per 1 resolved bet that included all the winners with respective sums - i guess this was deemed sufficient proof
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu has said that he intends to play the 'all coin is fungible and unidentifiable ' etc. game. which is fine. but what i don't grasp is how it is possible to craft hard record of debt and repayment without some hook on which to hang them.
asciilifeform: ( i have nfi why )
asciilifeform: the whole ~point~, i thought, of bitcoin, is to nuke the buluceala
asciilifeform: i was arguing a more modest point, that if bbet had ~specified~ what it promised to bettors, we would have no thread here.
kakobrekla: in other words: say if i accidental rm -rf the code and db, who is on the line here?
asciilifeform: i.e. does it mean 'pays from this here addr to that there at time t'
asciilifeform: jurov: i did not propose to ~automate~ bbet
nubbins`: "if i knew everyone'd be so mad about these payouts, i would have kept company funds in a separate address"
asciilifeform: 'if i knew where i'd fall, i'dve put something soft down' - ru proverb
jurov: that was just malapropismetaphor, i'm interested what would alf algoritmize here
jurov: (i surely misread you, but which part here should have been algoritmized?)
gribble: I have not seen eskimociu.
gribble: I have not seen ciubob.
davout: nubbins`: i disagree
davout: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=23-03-2016#1439164 <<< the way i understand the listing is that everything had to be approved by both, it usually happened retroactively with kakobrekla signing statements, until he didn't ☝︎
nubbins`: if you send BTC to an address i own, i'm not a thieving swine regardless of whether you meant to send it.
nubbins`: i guess kako can
davout: asciilifeform: i'd argue communism would actually be the opposite
davout: PeterL: yeah, that's pertty much the conclusion i came to so far
nubbins`: i'm just pointing a finger and calling a thing by name.
nubbins`: i'm not crying for justice
nubbins`: why am i engaging in this ridiculous broken analogy
nubbins`: but if i buy a race car for personal use and charge it to the company
nubbins`: as a privately-owned corporation, i can do pretty much whatever the fuck i want
nubbins`: trinque indeed, i own a majority of shares
nubbins`: if i act as an elephant and declare it so...?
davout: asciilifeform: i think the matter becomes mucho clearer if you ask yourself "did bbet pay twice or did bbet pay once with mp coming along later for a gracious donation to the same recipients"
asciilifeform: trinque: and ultimately davout has the scalpel now. but i can still ~say~ to him, 'hey listen up the liver is ~that~ way'
trinque: I am not.
nubbins`: no, i have a terrible memory, it borders on pathology
nubbins`: i've never seen such vehement opposition to simple discussion of factual events as i've seen in here the past few weeks
asciilifeform: trinque: i have no standing whatsoever re bbet. but the matter is in the forum, fwiw. so we comment.
nubbins`: i'm juuuuuust offering opinion.
nubbins`: i'm under no illusions that what i say is binding on anyone
nubbins`: i'm only flapping my jaw here.
kakobrekla: asciilifeform yes, after the last fuck up i have added a way to specify the resulting tx when bet is resolved and payment is done so we wouldnt be doing two payments for one bet any more (because this obviously doesnt work!!)
PeterL: I think the delay by bitcoin network was assumed to be okay
asciilifeform: kakobrekla: this answers, i think, my question of 'what exactly was it that bbet promised winners'
kakobrekla: im not even sure what is being argued here but i feel it might relevant that proof of payment on bbet was always ambiguous - there was no explicit thing showing the payment - the most explicit was the lack of complaints
asciilifeform: nubbins`: then irreconcilably different premises, aha, and i have no moar wordz.
nubbins`: i do not.
asciilifeform: nubbins`: BUT if i owed you 100, and he dropped 100, and i say 'i paid', and kakobrekla does not contest this claim - you've been paid.
asciilifeform: nubbins`: no, because i had no commerce with him.
asciilifeform: if i promise that you will be 100btc richer tomorrow, and i choose to pay you by dropping it from an airplane into your chimney, so long as no one else contests that it was i who dropped - the debt is paid.
asciilifeform: i don't recall any metadata.