170000+ entries in 1.259s
ascii_field: mircea_popescu: who the fuck gets women off
a menu << the fella with an already-assembled harem, such as mircea_popescu ?
ascii_field: chetty: not that one cannot use imagination. but it is folly to say 'i would not want atomic dirigible' unless that choice is actually there, like the decision of whether to buy
a laser printer
mircea_popescu: you know the harem is not like,
a block of cheese. it's an abstract name given to
a complex social reality.
ascii_field: but recall the thirsty man in the desert who 'could drink
a river'
ascii_field: re: socks: i am reminded of dan mocsny's piece on how very few people can give honest answer to the question of whether they want, e.g.,
a harem - because they don't have the option in menu
mircea_popescu: have
a bunch of techs and mandatory clothing insurance.
mircea_popescu: it'd seem to me it'd be more painful to have panties made for no particular cock than you know,
a shirt.
ascii_field: mircea_popescu: i find reading anything - other than plain text - not designed with
a particular viewport geometry in mind - physically painful.
ascii_field: think of every time you have to wiggle the y axis to fit
a figure on the display
mircea_popescu: ascii_field the problem is that you always have
a finite workspace.
mircea_popescu: ascii_field you're eliding the point. the fact that your misshapen pixels allow you to not see the distortion means your meat is made to look through
a tank periscope in the first place.
ascii_field: mircea_popescu: what i do have is 4 lcd laid out in such
a way as to fill my field of vision
ascii_field: mircea_popescu: would love
a square display with square pixels
ascii_field: x-only is like seeing life through
a tank periscope
ascii_field: i insist on these to be either on
a) paper b) device with dimensions and pixel density of paper, which i own - but in both cases - retaining the original pagination
mircea_popescu: me being
a folk who reads maths, and historeical documents. even the original blueprint.
mircea_popescu: but it still seems to me
a narrow corner case notrly contemplated here.
mircea_popescu: now, one's experience may vary, i've not printed
a book in
a decade,
ascii_field: i actually do not like pdf, for various reasons, some of which overlap with mircea_popescu's. i prefer
a wavelet-compressed format, 'djvu'
ascii_field: but pointing out that asking printer or tablet makers to build machines which can swallow .tex is
a nonstarter
mircea_popescu: so does pdf, in same conditions. except you gotta use either
a windows bundle or else more perl crud munged together.
mircea_popescu: the failure of widgets is
a problem of the widgetmaker. do not ask me to solve it till i market
a widget.
mircea_popescu: 'cause that's all they know, facebook model. pretend like "we" are interacting with the stakeholders but stay anonymous, and then if/when this gets big enough, assert
a new identity and whoopdeedoo, claim you're worth
a billion.
mircea_popescu: no dude, that's how *they hope to make money*. later on. once "we" and "contact us" have got enough of this fuzzy baseless trust made by appealing to
a certain naivity of the intelligent.
ascii_field: funkenstein_: pdf is more or less ps plus
a bit of header
ascii_field: it would help if there were actually
a proper replacement for it.
mircea_popescu: you don't want me to think "hey that was
a great piece, i wonder IF ARXIV ORG HAS MORE"
mircea_popescu: own your content, AND EVERYTHING ABOUT IT. you don't need someone else deciding anything whatsoever. not what url to use. not when to "put up
a warning page". not. ANYTHING.
mircea_popescu: dude...srsly.
a walled garden/proprietary platform is bad in and of itself. it's not bad only if it becomes big.
mircea_popescu: and im not reading
a pdf. what the fuck funkenstein_ .
mircea_popescu: <mats> conned or what? lent his name for
a buck to some trash? << intelligent people have
a lot of trouble avoiding locklin's mistake.
mircea_popescu: bitstein the observer makes the valid code replace point, but STILL names its article "the race to replace bitcoin". as fucking if. "the race to waste imbecile capitalist money, the new hot valley term for what was once known as
a venture capitalist" was radioactive or something.
assbot: viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1504.0072, “The Majority is Enough”
a Rebuttal of Two Proposed Vulnerabilities of Bitcoin Mining ... (
http://bit.ly/1aqXbRI )
mats: conned or what? lent his name for
a buck to some trash?
bitstein: gave
a long answer describing the fork and giving lip service to this new consensus mechanism in the works, but failed to address the second part. So before they moved on, I followed up, “But right now, Stellar is
a centralized system?” He begrudgingly responded, “It runs on one node, yes.” After my question they all went right on back to talking about how awful centralization is and how great the decentralized future is.
bitstein: At SXSW, I snuck into
a Bitcoin 2.0 panel Jed McCaleb was on. During the Q&
A I got up and asked, “Last December the Stellar blog had
a post called ‘Safety, liveness and fault tolerance—the consensus choices’ that described how there was
a fork in the ledger and subsequently, Stellar had essentially collapsed into
a centralized system. Can you elaborate on what happened and why people should trust Stellar in its aftermath?” He
Adlai: concern trolling in
a fancy typeface
Adlai: painting this picture of
a mining commons on the brink of tragedy
Adlai: with "the defense" taking some form such as
a pool operator negrating
a miner who has an unreasonable dropoff of share-finding luck just below the difficulty threshhold
Adlai:
a when the same merkle root shows up again?
mircea_popescu: so i give you nonces 1-100 to hash , and fluffy nonces 101-200. and you report nothing found, and he reports nothing found. and then one day
a block on nonce 76 is found and you are forever fucked.
mircea_popescu: fluffypony yes fluffs, in
a game theoretic universe where cows are spherical and it rains glass, one could accidentally make
a cow snowglobe.
mircea_popescu: people became intellectually enamoured with it and keep spouting it everywhere, as
a sort of cargo-cult bitcoin "knowledges"
fluffypony: also, as I understand it, we're talking about
a future time when running
a pool *is* more profitable than it is now
mircea_popescu: Adlai the "withholding" thing is idiocy of prime order. it existe,d historically (ie, cca 2011) and was
a problem for early pools. but it was SHARE withholding, not block withholding. it was fixed meanwhile.
Adlai: why is ddos an issue here? this attack is not
a ddos
fluffypony: miners configure their mining setup with failover pools, but it failsover based on latency as well as
a pool being unreachable
mircea_popescu: do you have any idea how long it'd take
a pool (just that, nothing else) to make back 100 dollars after server costs ?
fluffypony: DDoS isn't
a solved problem for Stratum, and especially not for mining where latency is of the utmost concern
mircea_popescu: as
a result of 1 and 2, 50% of people mining on B move, leaving it with 11% hash rate. the resulting 24% difference moves to pools, 90% of which are
A's.
mircea_popescu: 2. ddos' pool B. as if ddos is not actually
a solved problem.
mircea_popescu: fluffypony let's see this. pool
A has 25% of hash rate. pool B has 30% of hash rate. there's 45 other pools each with 1%.
Adlai: and, miner C could be mining on pool
A, and getting paid according to pool
A's public stats, but actually be "working" on an attack against pool B
fluffypony: Pool
A won't attack Pool B and then put out
a blog post bragging about it
fluffypony: even though, in reality, it is
a competing pool
fluffypony: they're talking about
a surreptitious attack where the attacker is not known
fluffypony: they're not talking about
a situation like that
mircea_popescu: i mean... they should still be here, riught ? they owned
a year ago, right ? what happened ?
Adlai: it may indeed be
a DoS on minds, withholding relevant problems by suggesting subtly irrelevant ones in their stead
fluffypony: mircea_popescu: "miners care deeply who owns
a pool" - we're getting into the realm of the anecdotal here, the mining farms I supply ASIC racks to don't care about the people running the pools they use at all, and they don't run their own
Adlai: afaict, the only people who can credibly back up such
a statement are pool operators
fluffypony: because the owner of pool
A and pool B could be the same
fluffypony: in fact, since the cost of starting and operating
a pool is low, and they already have the technical know-how, they can setup
a whole hoard of seemingly legitimate pools
fluffypony: it is in
A's best interest to setup
a new pool, C, and then DDoS B so that C's % of the hashrate grows
fluffypony: two mining pools that control 25% of the hashrate each, mining pool
A and B
mircea_popescu: even leaving aside the rank nonsense of the particular "analysis". the concept that it is somehow game-theoretic feasible for
a one-of-many arrangement to attack everyone is at least bizarre.
mircea_popescu: dude am i the only one with
a scrollback or something. how is the "nash equilibrium" stuff sensible.
jurov: of course. and it's not me, but
a coinbr client
funkenstein_: the other one suggests that mining for
a pool and throwing away found blocks could somehow help you
funkenstein_: the "selfish mining" suggests that not broadcasting
a found block could somehow help you
fluffypony: it is in the best interest of larger mining pools to attack smaller ones, for the most part, and even to attack each other (as long as it isn't
a matter of mutually assured destruction)
funkenstein_: this guy wrote
a couple papers over
a year ago, claiming vulns in mining
mats: this is
a bad idea and so is ntoskrnl support for docker
davout: "Microsoft creates
a container for Windows, reinvents toilet bowl"