153700+ entries in 0.046s
mircea_popescu thought the 80s fucking sucked. then again, back then hadn't seen the 90s. 00s. 10s. etc.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform> i can almost imagine i live in 1980. << the things one yearns for
mircea_popescu: <assbot> with note: Thinks screaming at the dike plugs the hole <<< wait, did i just get called a fat homosexual woman ?
mircea_popescu: this whole "nubbins, the guy who made some funny observations" thing is certainly punching below his weight.
mircea_popescu: but that aside, i did mean about the ugly broad and the general waster attitude. who knows, maybe discovering how little credit he carries with the people he likes and who he flattered himself into seeing as equals provides the much needed impetuus to make something of himself.
mircea_popescu: looky, a republic is not a democracy no matter on what face you turn the democracy pebble.
mircea_popescu: jurov> hanbot rabbling is better than silence <<< not really. see the jirinovski problem. an idiot spewing makes the discussion that much harder for saner people with meaningful things to say.
mircea_popescu: you think who and when decided what in a private corp is open to your inquiry because you have the ability to roll your eyes ?
mircea_popescu: "t, that all expenses charged against BitBet will exclusively reflect expenditure in good faith resulting from the operation of its business"
mircea_popescu: he also has had at all points ~0 say in how bets are resolved, for instance.
mircea_popescu: i had no idea he even wants or wanted the liability - but my guess is no, he didn't.
mircea_popescu: jurov contract demands unanimous agreement on dispositions of bitbet. if it's sold, say. it doesn't demand, nor has in practice been ever the case that its sought in all matters.
mircea_popescu: wanna complain, go negrate the set of power rangers that made this idiocy possible, da fuck already.
mircea_popescu: no idea why he imagines that'll carry, but whatever. it ain't gonna. he doesn't like bitcoin - he can either fix it or stick to cad.
mircea_popescu: cazalla everyone has very legit cause for complaint. the problem is that [the subsection of everyone who thinks the us is the world] imagines that the thing to do when you got legit cause of complaint is to try and identify a kulak and get him to admit his mistakes.
mircea_popescu: curious how long before alf buys one of those self-driving cars so he can irc while he idles.
mircea_popescu: looking forward to the nubbins 1g box so he can be a lord on his own merit for once.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i'm sure nubbins` will be done derping idly, dump the ugly broad, get the fuck out of the meaningless paper products shuffling, get back in math school and generally make himself useful. any day now.
mircea_popescu: which is what everyone (at least previously) told himself is happening to go to bed and not wake screaming
mircea_popescu: re prev point : so yeah, most strong nodes will have multiple interfaces they look at. so most people (who know, as opposed of feeling like they know) aren't necessariyl surprised by ~some degree~ of sybiling.
mircea_popescu: but... no pogos. because no static linking in gcc. because etc.
mircea_popescu: well yeah, had we had the pogos deployed last year or somesuch this might have been a very different story.
mircea_popescu: in any case : some degree of proxying is absolutely unavoidable in bitcoin relay , because ... ddos.
mircea_popescu: i've encountered to signs of this animal, and this is such an unlikely event if there were a battle even ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform even so, i don't think banning sybil reduces to "unable to talk to white devils".
mircea_popescu: davout i don't mean it as an attack or anything. and the question of exploring the negative is open now and will remain open until spec.
mircea_popescu: this is very different from the negative, "it doesn't not work".
mircea_popescu: davout that's what i mean by positive. yes, "it works".
mircea_popescu: my telescope, in it being man made not god given, is not much more than a tool.
mircea_popescu: it is also the first time i've seeing you err on THIS side ever before.
mircea_popescu: but i dunno how to carry that particular discussion in a way that'd dispose.
mircea_popescu: i'm not saying what you're saying is provably impossible. i am saying to my eyes - it is very improbable.
mircea_popescu: because the other miners would have an incentive to destroy the miniminer's supernode, and there's jackl the miniminer could do to protect it.
mircea_popescu: back in the day bitcoin mining was healthy, after a fashion, pools came and went. they've been stable for a long time now.
mircea_popescu: anyway, i've been thinking about your theory ever since, but i don't credit it asciilifeform. for one thing, it's unstable. seriously, supernode and miniminer ? it'd get torn apart.
mircea_popescu: you think you're running a node, because, symptomatically, in the windows definition of running code (hey, click items till it works) you are. but the sense of running code contemplated for bitcoin is negative, not positive, and you don't know how to check for that nor do you specifically care.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: or if you prefer, see phf's example with "my friend, the kgb agent"
mircea_popescu: davout i don't think you take my meaning. the situation that you imagine is, "hey, whatever, summertime and a bunch of us are at the beach". the situation in reality is, "a moroccan clan and some fat frenchies at the beach". guess how likely you are to a) find out the price of dried fruit and b) find out that you aren't finding out the price of dried fruit.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform you know, and we for whatever reasons just see the 1 in 100 gunshot.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform by this logic tho, are there also 99 bitcoins we don't know about ? 99 linuxen ? 99 gccs that statically link ?
mircea_popescu: but anyway, yes, if you believe 1 in 100, they yes, you don't need cartel, just persistent miner.
mircea_popescu: "pet miner". if pet miner has 1% of hash, the observed phenomena occur 1% of cases.
mircea_popescu: specifically the "sudden mining of an old 0fee tx" ? how ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform when you say "it is not supported", what do you mean ?
mircea_popescu: specifically because it allows them the only possible moat against competition
mircea_popescu: and there are VERY GOOD game theoretic reasons for a miner cartel to do this.
mircea_popescu: i also said as much at that exact time, in this very chan.
mircea_popescu: and they put it in, at the ~same second they "broadcast" it to the hanger-on nodes.
mircea_popescu: it is an intricate discussion, and one i'm unwillingto carry in the full detail, but on the basis of what i have seen, it is my considered opinion that at the time in discussion, the miner cartel was running a ~half hour block delay thing.
mircea_popescu: davout> asciilifeform: a transaction being relayed does not imply it will be mined by anyone << especially a 0fee one.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform how does a transaction that shouldn't even be relayed GET relayed, and then mined, in short order ?
mircea_popescu: but, generally speaking, sybil testing on purported bitcoin nodes are a good idea, especially if carried out in secret and uncoordinatedly.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: it is unclear what the help'd be at the present time, however. i see exactly no signs of any of the observed behaviours discussed in teh qntra piece anymore.
mircea_popescu: i'm willing, on general goodwill, to help. i am certainly not willing to underwrite an open ended personal support for some venture i happen to manage.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform no argument. in which it becomes entirely a bitbet's swamp, which bitbet has to drain.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform this is obviously always possible. except it'd be bitbet, raqther than mp. i've been otherwise unmolested throughout.
mircea_popescu: its sudden appearance was discussed in these very logs - even for that brief interval before it made it into a block.
mircea_popescu: a statement of fact is a statement of fact. it only becomes a proof if used in a reasoning. a fact and a proof are very different items : one's a realia, the other ideal.
mircea_popescu: davout because one can connect to it again and see what it says.
mircea_popescu: anyway, if anyone had anythong intelligent to say that got buried in the spew, feel free to restate. i'm not wading through that pile of idiocy.
mircea_popescu: which yes, on the sheer strength of the abundance and precision, "dang, this better be a nightmare"
mircea_popescu: let's just say that i lifted the rock and i saw every type of heresy in there.
mircea_popescu: anyway. to my eyes this is specifically and precisely said in the qntra piece, but w/e, more passes never hurt anyone, i guess. except if the passes are beatings or something.
mircea_popescu: the chief problem with trying to communicate things is that there's always going to be a set of idiots / lazy thinkers who want a specific outcome out of the conversation, and then proceed to parasitize it with their half-assed sententious bullshit.
mircea_popescu: and so no, one who things "well there's nodes, so it's a p2p network" is utterly flattering himself. no such thing in bitcoin. there's a supernode, and a bunch of whatevers.