asciilifeform: jurov: such as.

asciilifeform: or rabbi from neighbouring shtetl

asciilifeform: instead of a buncha rabbis.

asciilifeform: y'know, a ~machine~.

asciilifeform: when asked to.

asciilifeform: so that a bitcoin node can calculate whether it in fact happened.

asciilifeform: or something else.

asciilifeform: i.e. does it mean 'pays from this here addr to that there at time t'

asciilifeform: jurov: but merely to ~specify~ what it means for 'bbet owes' and 'bbet pays its debt'

asciilifeform: jurov: i did not propose to ~automate~ bbet

asciilifeform: 'if i knew where i'd fall, i'dve put something soft down' - ru proverb

asciilifeform: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=23-03-2016#1439201 << it is very easy to 'plan' in hindsight. ☝︎

asciilifeform: !s buluceala

asciilifeform: otherwise - soup.

asciilifeform: as in, ALGORITHMICALLY evaluatable.

asciilifeform: gotta have PROTOCOL

asciilifeform: trinque has it.

asciilifeform: because he picked up the knife.

asciilifeform: by davout.

asciilifeform: so it will be defined retroactively.

asciilifeform: thing is, regardless of how this is settled, there was a catastrophic failure in 'protocol vs promise' land where bbet never nailed down what ~exactly~ bet winners are promised.

asciilifeform: nubbins`: it is described in the manual, what will happen if you send to a closed bet.

asciilifeform: davout: so the thieving swine who pocketed the windfall, KNEW whose coin it was, and what will happen to bbet, a 0-asset corp, when it is missing, and did nothing - have no greater share of responsibility than other bettors ?

asciilifeform: davout: which is a separate issue.

asciilifeform: davout: my argument in the beginning of this mega-thread was that to give ~all bettors the same fraction of the haircut~ is 'communism' because they are in fact ~unequal~ in crafting their misfortune.

asciilifeform: davout: aha

asciilifeform: davout: yes!

asciilifeform: davout: but say the 1st tx went into dev/null as mircea_popescu intended it to when sending the 2nd. would the bettors have been wronged ?

asciilifeform: davout: aha.

asciilifeform: trinque: he can agree, or not.

asciilifeform: trinque: and ultimately davout has the scalpel now. but i can still ~say~ to him, 'hey listen up the liver is ~that~ way'

asciilifeform: trinque: it is called a forum.

asciilifeform: trinque: i have no standing whatsoever re bbet. but the matter is in the forum, fwiw. so we comment.

asciilifeform: trinque: but simply ~payout~

asciilifeform: trinque: seems like the bettors were ~never~ promised payouts ~from particular addr~

asciilifeform: davout: esp if the slope is not the least bit slippery, much as some folks might like to pour soap on it

asciilifeform: nubbins`: and not 'from mysterymeat to mysterymeat'

asciilifeform: nubbins`: both tx were for ~every~ purpose, from bbet, to bettors.

asciilifeform: nubbins`: you are painting uncertainty where none existed.

asciilifeform: so this time it was broken by paying them ccc - e coin at time t - t', ahead of schedule.

asciilifeform: every time payouts were delayed.

asciilifeform: but it was broken routinely long before!

asciilifeform: t - was specified. and this condition was, yes, broken

asciilifeform: it was rather 'ccc coin to addr specified at bet time, at time t'

asciilifeform: so it was NOT 'ccc coin from addr aaa at time t'

asciilifeform: kakobrekla: this answers, i think, my question of 'what exactly was it that bbet promised winners'

asciilifeform: kakobrekla: so it WAS 'you will be XXX btc richer', wasnit.

asciilifeform: PeterL: iirc it is in the lee sedol comments.

asciilifeform: ;;later tell pete_dushenski any idea what talmud says about all this ?

asciilifeform: nubbins`: then irreconcilably different premises, aha, and i have no moar wordz.

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: having been promised.

asciilifeform: i don't recall any metadata.

asciilifeform: address - was paid! it was promised 'being paid', not 'be paid with metadata such-and-such'

asciilifeform: jurov: this is a leap into neverneverland. but operating using the ORIGINAL premise of bbet, where coin is owed to ADDRESS, is not.

asciilifeform: nubbins`: what am i to do, half the folks i talk to killfiled other half

asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: though oddly enough he was arguing your side of the medal !

asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: you can safely skip the preceding thread, it is a nubsism

asciilifeform: and i have yet to read of a bbet user who wrote in, 'fuck you! i got my 22.222 btc but i can't be sure from whom and for what! pay up!'

asciilifeform: ergo both 'from bbet' for any conceivable purpose.

asciilifeform: if either ALONE would have satisfied the creditors, they were then idempotent !

asciilifeform: tell me that they would not, then you will have an argument

asciilifeform: or not ?

asciilifeform: they would consider themselves fairly repaid ?

asciilifeform: either one.

asciilifeform: say they had received only ONE of them.

asciilifeform: from the perspective of the recipients

asciilifeform: nubbins`: both payments were quite clearly 'from bbet' tho.

asciilifeform: nubbins`: i see what you did there.

asciilifeform: and not from imaginary animals sitting at the controls.

asciilifeform: what i'm saying is that obligation was from bbet-addr to bettor-addr.

asciilifeform: nubbins`: except that it is not external.

asciilifeform: so it is owed e.

asciilifeform: it was given B - e at time T - q. Now, condition C.

asciilifeform: address was owed B btc at time T if condition C.

asciilifeform: kakobrekla: aha! so treat the obligation as to the inanimate object: the ADDRESS.

asciilifeform: nubbins`: the separate-entities thing

asciilifeform: nubbins`: your contention is that it was impossible for the windfall recipients to return it ?

asciilifeform: by any sane reckoning.

asciilifeform: merely that it counts against your debt.

asciilifeform: note that i am not arguing that this is a moral obligation ☟︎

asciilifeform: not to mention that ~any~ btc can be sent back to originator addr!!

asciilifeform: PeterL: so you know EXACTLY how to put coin in bbet pocket, it was never a secret.

asciilifeform: PeterL: read any bbet statement, you will find 'gracious donations'

asciilifeform: he might. but only after i pay the 100.

asciilifeform: i ask 'gimme back me sword, mircea_popescu '

asciilifeform: i forget it on a park bench. he finds it.

asciilifeform: and i have a vorpal sword, worth 150

asciilifeform: say i owe mircea_popescu 100 btc.

asciilifeform: you can't be a 'people' when you feel like it, and then a 'mechanism' when it suits you.

asciilifeform: whereas if we paint them as 'people,' they then had a ~choice~ re: what to do with the coin.

asciilifeform: and partially.

asciilifeform: because they were paid. just slightly earlier than ought to have been.

asciilifeform: if we can have them be just addresses, the obligation was to ADDRESSES and is SATISFIED

asciilifeform: well yes.

asciilifeform: these are supposed to be ~people~ ☟︎

asciilifeform: yes.

asciilifeform: mega-unsurprise.