202900+ entries in 1.858s

mircea_popescu: but of a meta-question. you're basically scoring yourself. "hopw likely am
i to be able to answer someones' q's about this guyu"
fluffypony:
I'd expect that someone that wants to deal with them will come talk to me and say "
I see you did a $100 trade with rg...is he trustworthy?"
mircea_popescu: maybe
i trade 5k btc a week with someone and
i can't go past 1.
mircea_popescu: maybe
i know everything
i need to know about a girl from seeing her tits online. that's a solid 10.
fluffypony:
I "know" nothing about them beyond that
mircea_popescu: "how did you manage a total score of 5000 while nobody of the 300 people
i know ever dealt with you ?"
fluffypony: danielpbarron:
I don't disagree with genericpersona, those ratings are far from the biggest threat to the WoT
artifexd: fluffypony: Sometimes
I wonder if you are actually a small script that looks like "echo reddit.com"
mircea_popescu: danielpbarron:
i think all users should be able to give ratings; doesn't matter if they are trolls or scammers << it's not really a good idea, because spamming.
mircea_popescu: mike_c: nanotube: why show "total points" on rating page?
i thought that was supposed to be a meaningless number. << it's not entirely meaningless. it reflects the probability of a user being in your network.
godovo:
I bet he didn't see it coming, lol
mthreat:
i used to pay $10/month for someone to do my laundry in 'da pen'
mircea_popescu: On October 9, 2013,
I made contact with CALIGIRL utilizing the Bitmessage program and the 'trusted' Bitmessage address CALIGIRL provided. << nice use of airquotes there lol
jurov: can
i make the seal with the duble cherry truck?
mthreat: mircea_popescu:
I'd be an excellent taxi driver
mthreat:
I think it was on HN, oddly enough
mircea_popescu: jurov this could work. you publish the list once a month on your blog, as mike describes, then
i verify the totals.
unseen: mike_c
I decided to trust MPEX.
jurov: mike_c whole setup makes api unfeasible. unless
i limit it to 1 call/user/ 5 seconds
mike_c: fwiw,
i've never heard a complaint about coinbr.
unseen: mike_c counter-party risk.
I like the PGP signed order system.
mircea_popescu: (
i know you think you know how it works, but srsly, read that thing)
mike_c: unseen: may
I ask, any reason you don't use coinbr?
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves:
i dont understand why the line was ever there though really << because children, essentially.
mircea_popescu: unseen well you can do whatever you want, but imagine
i wrote to the new york times to ask them to revalue their subscripton costs because the "value" of the dolar in argentine pesos has changed.
unseen: mircea_popescu
i still convert BTC to fiat in my head before spending, bad habit
I guess. ..
mike_c: hell,
i would take it for $200 for trolling :)
mircea_popescu: anyway,
i readily grant fluffypony's much better than bitcoinpete.
mircea_popescu: and
i'll be like... hey this here is ben vulpes, master of the vulpes. and this is pete d from canada
gribble:
I have not seen pete_dushenki.
mircea_popescu: it's like the best girl name anyway, but like this... omfg,
i'll pay.
mircea_popescu: fluffypony: "Me siento con suerte" sounds like the title of a poem, doesn't have the same ring to it as "
I'm feeling lucky" << srsly. most shit in spanish sounds poetic.
mircea_popescu: pankkake: eheh. outrage-driven is clearly the right qualifier <<
i like the girl, she's got word propriety. this is a rare skill, as it requires a lot more in depth knowledge than your average internet tard can possibly muster.
mike_c: misunderstood,
i get it.
mircea_popescu:
i wish there was some way to make a bitbet about this.
kakobrekla: anyway
i think we jumped the gun on this, fortunate no harm done in either case.
mircea_popescu: ow shit, no, actulaly,
i linked the logs in my response
mircea_popescu: mike_c
i have a lot of experience with wanna-be spammer kids. this is simply "plausible denial", as they understand it.
mike_c: Top one is exact copy kako got.
i think it's phishers.
mircea_popescu: <BigBitz> and
I doubt coindesk use @gmail.com lol << obviously they use gmail.com.
kakobrekla: so in that case,
i guess not that amazing.
kakobrekla: it is indeed possible
i was talking to phisher now that BigBitz pointed it out
mike_c:
i'm surprised they had the balls for that.
kakobrekla:
i was still in bed when lampelina came in yelling "lmao coindesk called you a fagot!"
BigBitz: and
I doubt coindesk use @gmail.com lol
kakobrekla: a follow up: >So
I take that back and just give you a plain fuck you.
kakobrekla:
i will send aplologies to the phisher.
mircea_popescu: basically coindesk is about to go out of business
i take it.
rithm:
i need to get in on that op channel with the special topic
rithm: idk
i'm just a poor pawn.
rithm: maybe
i've just seen it done so much and all the exploits and loopholes are closed now
rithm: then
i created 12 more with btc addresses
artifexd: There was an anti-sockpuppet scheme that revolved around committing bitcoin for a certain amount of time.
I'm having trouble finding the details right now.
rithm: making it cost prohibitive to shill ratings is the key
i think
rithm:
i don't have a solution sorry
ThickAsThieves:
i'd donate money to a proper effort to make such things
punkman: rithm, not enough people for that
I think
rithm: initially
i was not
rithm: this whole WoT thing has gotten complex over time and usage. but
I basically am on the mpoe side of the fence and
i think these "bitcoin wot's" need to be pay-to-pay
rithm: right artifexd.
i sortof behave here because my peers are watching and
i'd hate for someone to think
I'm not a person of my word
danielpbarron: bump me from a -2 to a -3 and
i can't rate anymore :<
rithm:
i hate to be exclusionary but
rithm:
i do not have a solution but
i think entry into the wot should be guarded
ThickAsThieves:
i dislike the extreme which becomes possible with a "better" wot
jurov: ThickAsThieves
i understood it as you dislike the need not to be anonymous for web of trust to work
danielpbarron: it's already solved; none of your shills are in my L1 (
i think)
ThickAsThieves: jurov
i dont understand what you said, probably because you misunderstood what
i said
rithm: idenitity verification, not allow multiple accounts of some sort is the only solution
i know of
rithm:
i myself may or maynot have 14 shill accounts for ratings offsets
jurov: ThickAsThieves> one problem
i have... etc..<< you seem to dream about some opaque oracle that will issue trustable rating info for anonymous identities
danielpbarron: well, it sorta does make a difference at the moment, because nanotube won't let you even give a rating if your score goes negative (
i think)
rithm: so in theory
i agree with you because it's already happened to me and no fucks were given
danielpbarron: scammers aren't in my L1;
I don't care what ratings they give..
rithm: and
i've heard a lot of stupid shit
rithm: that's stupidiest thing
i've ever heard come from this channel
danielpbarron: mike_c, yeh; that was my bad;
I know them IRL; lesson learned there..
rithm:
i can walk into the NYSE and call people idiots
danielpbarron:
i'm on the verge of not being able to rate anymore because of idiots like you ( Blazedout419 ) in -otc
rithm: <danielpbarron> +
i think all users should be able to give ratings; doesn't matter if they are trolls or scammers
Blazedout419: nano is very fair though so it has not been an issue from what
I have seen
danielpbarron:
i think all users should be able to give ratings; doesn't matter if they are trolls or scammers
danielpbarron: the one potential problem
I see happening with nanotube's WoT, is that a small majority can prevent a user from even giving ratings..
ThickAsThieves: one problem
i have for my vision of a decentralized wot, is when
i simulate it in my end, it turns into a sort of international passport system over time and could totally remove anonymity from so many areas of life, and well, is that what we really want?
Blazedout419:
I just think for a business the scores matter more