104000+ entries in 0.834s

jurov:
i managed to get some crumbs
phf: jurov: you're right, there's not much that can be done as far as bickering.
i find some of the positions rather petty or outright alarmist, but
i can't keep people from talking.
i'm only thinking that an arbitration procedure could produce tldr that at the very least will focus the attention.
☟︎ BingoBoingo: Who knows, maybe after reciever cuts it up Betmoose would be willing to buy parts and carry it as the sort of reddit betting thing they've been somehow floating for a while.
I don't know if
I would bet there, but seems like possible buyer for domain/software.
jurov:
i did want bbet restarted, but since today
i realized the "can't be valued" part, this is not feasible
jurov: while bitbet is frozen, there's not going to be any end to the discussion,
i am afraid.
phf:
i'm a slow thinker, so
i'm taking my time
jurov: cmon,
i genuinely want to learn what are you onto
jurov: but
i already did that short of negrating him, why would
i need a judge?
assbot: Logged on 14-03-2016 16:33:32; phf:
i think this question is receiving far less attention then the alleged miner collusion.
i would've liked to see it approached through a judge (perhaps moon is a harsh mistress style "would you be our judge?"), a carefully constructed paper, an investigation, rather than bickering in logs.
i think the question is also separate from receivership and is about ensuring that the rest of tmsr maintain a shared vision
phf: there's an utter lack of compartmentalization going on here. the way bitbet is structured is explicit in the contract. only aspect of the operation that's under consideration is "recieve bets, take percentage, pay out", because that's all that shareholders are party to. everything else is between kako and mp and that aspect worked for them. at no point was this arrangement publicly ~questioned~ by any party involved.
i spelled it out in
trinque:
I was there for the original thread.
jurov: yes,
i understand it too.
i only don't understand the "can't be valued" part.
assbot: Logged on 14-03-2016 18:21:42; mircea_popescu: the latter part come at an end at some point last year, when he asked to have it included in the cost structure.
i pointed out to him then that if
i correspondingly add my expenses in, we might as well close it.
assbot: Logged on 14-03-2016 19:34:02; mircea_popescu: asciilifeform> << just how deeply in the red ~was~ bbet, if we consider this ..? <<
i dunno man, how much for a night with my slave of your choice ? for me she'll do it for free, you she will not even consider. and this speaks to phf's and other's q as to why assets weren't on the books since they can be trivially enumerated : yes they can be ; but they can't be VALUED. what's the accounting value of
jurov: asciilifeform:
i don't see anything like that in this case
jurov: from today's log
i have learned that it's important to report *all* expenses, otherwise the "did this or that for free" arguments become another nail in the coffin
☟︎ phf:
i think it's entirely normal for tmsr operation to not have a bedrock, since we've just spent a year exploring just how rotten bedrock is. hosting, "personal affairs", linguistic and architectural choices, what have you.
phf: ftr
i didn't raise that as a question,
i was clarifying how things are for myself and others.
mircea_popescu: or in more at-home terms, what exactly am
i going to put phuctor into the s.nsa books as ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform> << just how deeply in the red ~was~ bbet, if we consider this ..? <<
i dunno man, how much for a night with my slave of your choice ? for me she'll do it for free, you she will not even consider. and this speaks to phf's and other's q as to why assets weren't on the books since they can be trivially enumerated : yes they can be ; but they can't be VALUED. what's the accounting value of bitbet codebase ?
☟︎ mircea_popescu:
i have nfi how it works, and imho it actually matters for making sense of the observations. << the problem here is that complete transparency can not be achieved for practical reasons. if it could have been, have no doubt
i would have preferred to this "under my seal" report avenue.
☟︎ phf: PeterL:
i think counterparty problem is asymmetrical. that's your collateral is higher then BoA's collateral when you establish partnership
PeterL: although,
I gues accounting-wise you could say you were paid the day the transaction was created, rather than the day it goes into block
PeterL:
I still don't see the need for any malisciousness, just somebody holding it in some sort of "side mempool"
PeterL:
I guess he could specifically design a transaction which is not passed by prb, and see if it gets into blocks, which
I think the high-S thing was an example?
mats:
http://log.b-a.link/?date=14-03-2016#1432527 << as
i've been reading it, the 17btc is still in dispute?
i don't want to be in the position of resolving this, but
i'd be happy to audit whatever coins still reside in s.bbet public (or not) addresses and publish results
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform if
i didn't think so, the qntra piece would have read "fuck vc sybils already".
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform can
i relay directly to miners, or can't
i ?
phf: PeterL: oh from ~sale~ you mean.
i don't think that shareholders have any claim to sale. since it's a zero asset corporation, the only movable part is "bets come in, percentage collected, payment sent out". "assets" is the percentage that's collected at the end of month, and immediately distributed to shareholders. what is being sold is domain/codebase and a negotiation rights with mp for hosting. that was never funded by shareholders
phf: PeterL: that is what
i said
mircea_popescu: do they not exactly read "
i, asciilifeform, hereby do declare there's no relay network other than the miner's own" ?
mircea_popescu: if more people had at any point throughout the intervening tax seasons stopped and thought "hey,
i made whatever, 100k dollars this year, of which
i'm signing off 60k to usg - might as well send tmsr the 0.1% it charges in tax!" then perhaps the foundation would have enough money and
i could just donate it there as an endpoint.
mircea_popescu: well,
i'm not entirely sure it can charge 1% if it doesn't resolve the bets.
mats: jurov,
i'm happy to do the audit but not act as receiver
mircea_popescu: iirc originally a chunk was sold, then sometime early last year or perhaps late 2014 the remainder of the shares were distributed to the principals. iirc
i didn't sell much, mostly now and again to try and temper overexcited price action. should be something like .5 to maybe 3mn shares outstanding depending how much kako himself sold.
mircea_popescu: but hey, if that's above what can be had, whatever,
i'll build a shrine to allah / brothel / whatever out of the proceeds and that's that.
phf:
i'm trying to compartmentalize where there's none, ultimately the whole thing is a counterparty problem, and only recourse is loss&negrate
mircea_popescu: it's a disease of the mind that
i don't really think can be cured, just quarantined.
mircea_popescu: that was also unpredictable bla bla. and
i'm sure the shareholders would very much like management to insulate them from it. if only.
phf: so a clarification to what
i said above, it's kakobrekla and mircea_popescu together paying for all aspects of bitbet operation out of pocket
mircea_popescu: but upon consideration,
i did put the amt for the server into the costs, it really being a pittance
mircea_popescu: so he rather cavallierly offered to continue eating the server while
i continue eating the admin.
mircea_popescu: the latter part come at an end at some point last year, when he asked to have it included in the cost structure.
i pointed out to him then that if
i correspondingly add my expenses in, we might as well close it.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: phf well no, kakobrekla wrote and maintained the code and for a while covered the server costs. the former part is no trivial matter,
i will point out.
phf: nubbins`: that's not the meaning of the paragraph. not "what" you did, but "how" is the focus., and the sentence you're pointing at is an exposition that frames my perspective, in a form similar to "some of us here are shoemakers and we blah blah blah". whatever blah blah blah is, it's not usually about how shoemakers can not shoemake anymore, but is more like "
i speak for shoemakers"
nubbins`: <+phf>nubbins`: it's a shame that you chose this approach for your denouncement. some people are here (myself, maybe ascii) not to make money, but to fuck around with novel ways of doing things <<< nothing about what
i did prevents this from continuing.
mircea_popescu: it's just this unpleasant "bitbet bets once resolve enact history".
i dislike the notion of cementing google's transpared ploy into my blockchain.
i'm sure it's all me.
thestringpuller:
I'll try it from another location later. Guess no qntra at work.
mircea_popescu: going through a game of go is rare among endeavours in that
i can't be doing other things.
mircea_popescu:
i even promise to not pelt with invective the poor receiver whichever way he chooses to go.
mircea_popescu: ow fuck, that's ANOTHER thing
i won't have to do, resolve that god damned bet, huh.
mircea_popescu: and to disabuse THAT notion,
i don't personally think stalin was either very apt, very smart, or any sort of example to be followed. is, indeed, a notable example for all sorts of things,