232400+ entries in 0.148s
mircea_popescu: mod6 in any case if you'd have never written
the
thing you'd have never found
this
thing. so you know, it's always worth losing fingers.
mod6: that's because
toposort hasn't happened yet.
mod6: i need
to dig into
this a bit more, but
the output flow is not necessarily
the same order
that
the signature verification happens in.
mod6: consider
the following paste I'll put
together... stand by.
mod6: death() means
that we die. we stop
then and
there. continue no further.
mod6: and it's one of
the first executing routines in my v.
mod6: err 'validate_seals'.
that's
the one.
mod6: Essentially, during
the verify_signatures subroutine, if a vpatch is found
to NOT have a corresponding signature, death().
☟︎☟︎ mod6: So I have a bit of code
that I've inserted
that will do what you ask.
mircea_popescu: 't
think you're an expert email or vim or bash user after less
than a year and
that's about how long v's been around.
a111: Logged on 2016-12-21 21:35 mod6: which basically means
to me, either no one understands "vtronics" or no one who did ever audited
the
thing. and i'm clearly not qualified and shouldn't have written
the fucking
thing int he first place.
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-21#1587625 << you gotta appreciate scrutiny is very inelastic. many people used
their own implementations ; discussion of others' versions only meaningfully starts after some localized familiarity etc. in any case "being qualified
to even use v" is an iffy
thing - seeing how it's a novel design, and
the novelty is fundamental and conceptual, nobody is
technically qualified
to use one. you wouldn
☝︎☟︎ a111: Logged on 2016-12-21 21:30 mod6: I
think alf should
take his V much further, and mine can fall into dust bin.
ben_vulpes: the other
thing is separate and not precisely a problem, i mean
to say.
ben_vulpes: no,
this is separate and not exactly a problem anyways.
mod6: but never
the less.
mod6: iw asn't sure
that
the problems you're having are related
to
this
a111: Logged on 2016-12-21 20:44 mod6: <+asciilifeform> even
the current
thread in #mod6 , is possibly an example << asciilifeform found an oversight in my latest version of V. it doesn't have a flag allow or disallow
the pressing of WILD vpatches.
ben_vulpes: software review
takes *months* if not *years* around here. part and parcel of
the deficit spending and how
the humans choose
to allocate
their
time.
a111: Logged on 2016-12-21 20:44 mod6: <+asciilifeform> even
the current
thread in #mod6 , is possibly an example << asciilifeform found an oversight in my latest version of V. it doesn't have a flag allow or disallow
the pressing of WILD vpatches.
trinque: again
the null set predicates
thing causes huge commotion. I am honestly (and without veiled jabs) fascinated.
mod6: i feel like
this
thing is a moving
target.
mod6: no hard feelings. i said i could do
this pretty easily.
jurov: ah. and why
the hard feelings wrt changing
that case into error,
too?
mod6: but if you hvae ~no~ seals,
then you can press it sure.
the 'flow' will represent
these as WILD.
mod6: in either of
those
two cases, it pukes and stops.
mod6: or if I have bad signatures,
then it'll complain as well.
mod6: if i have a bunch of seals in my .seals dir from a guy named 'alf'
that isn't in my wot,
then V will complain.
mod6: it looks for valid/in-valid signatures
to vpatches.
mod6: it iterates over all
the vpatches and
the like-named seals in
the .seals dir.
mod6: but i encourage you all
to experiment with
this.
mod6: anyway, i cna't
talk atm
mod6: if you get rid of one of
the seals for one of
the vpatches, it'll say "WILD"
mod6: so... say
that im
the only guy in your wot.
jurov: wait a sec. mod6's build system won't work if v is
to reject patches without sigs?
phf: that it might've been a bit premature
to attempt
to provide an authoritative comprehensive solution
phf: mod6: i
think
there's more infrastructure around V
than
there's V use, which leaves a lot of issues unexplored. for example
there were mentions
that V had a binary problem, but a serious discussion only happened recently, with no satisfactory solution. i
think you were attempting
to solve an important problem: how
to let people outside of
tmsr figure out build process without 6 months of log (seems like even more now), but i suspect
mod6: no seriously, i should have never been adacious enough
to
think
that I could make
that
thing work.
trinque: it's why V needs
to be in a V
tree itself.
BingoBoingo: Many long lived
things carry major flaw, see
that one
tower in Pisa
mod6: which basically means
to me, either no one understands "vtronics" or no one who did ever audited
the
thing. and i'm clearly not qualified and shouldn't have written
the fucking
thing int he first place.
☟︎ mod6: you know, i'd like
to. but my
thing has been around for waaay
to long for no one
to have noticed a huge flaw.
trinque: mod6: dun let vigorous discussion of
the item dissuade you of working on it.
mod6: I
think alf should
take his V much further, and mine can fall into dust bin.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: in all honestly if i were archeologist and discovering
this i'd flip
the bozo bit on
this "tmsr" bs for
this here reason.
trinque: how many encountered involve getting a
thing
to go down another branch
mircea_popescu: in
the same way fuckjing an ugly broad is a use of your cock.
mircea_popescu: the nearly psychotic OUTRIGHT REFUSAL
TO USE CRYPTOGRAPHY, in its universal insistence is starting
to grate on my neverse.
phf: hmm, can make
the process entirely painless with shitsign alias,
that does --batch --quiet and uses a passwordless key
mircea_popescu: if you want
to not be bothered with signing
things - make a shit key and use
that eg in an emacs module or as an output script or w/e
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform
they aren't.
the correct solution here is
to have "automated low value signature process", NOT "to bypass signature checks".
trinque: or we're afraid of patch? if we want an actual patch utility
that only deals in single byte characters and hashes, I will write it.
trinque: I have no idea how we get from "gnu cat is shit because
they added compromises
throughout
the
thing's life"
to "we will allow ourselves
this same sin" because what, we're holier, can afford it ?
trinque: he's using "wild"
to mean "bare of signatures"
trinque: which alright already regarding null sets, but look how it maims
the operator.
mod6: it doesn't care at signature
time if one is WILD or not, only if
the vpatch does not ~verify~ and
there is a corresponding seal.
mod6: mine ~does~
the check.
mod6: you can't
turn off
the sig check, at least in mine.
mod6: my v checks
the hashes for files pressed, and pukes if not a match from
the hashes in
the processed vpatch.
mod6: how does WILD have anything
to
to do with patch?
trinque: entirely inconsistent with recent "cat"
thread.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform and when i provide you with a
toilet, you'll stop pissing in
the bath
tub ?
trinque: the only reason we don't manually apply all each
time is we are relying upon
the "sworn"
trinque: why have
that code path present at all? fix patch, apply
test patches by hand
trinque: v used
to mean "tool which applies
tree of >1 lord-sworn changes
to definition of item" and would become "... or nobody swore, whatever"
a111: Logged on 2016-12-21 20:50
trinque:
the reason you do not use patch by hand is
that it does not respect
the hash
trinque: asciilifeform: how did you ^
the first statement of it and waiwat
the second
trinque: you are expanding
the definition of "v"
the word
to accomodate deficiencies in
the definition of another word, patch
mod6: i don't have
time right now. i'll come back later for
this.
trinque: note
that it does do a sort of squashy "this is what was around
the spliced matter" which is a shitty hash
trinque: the reason you do not use patch by hand is
that it does not respect
the hash
☟︎ mod6: <+trinque>
thing sounds like it needs
to be cleaved into vpatch and v which calls vpatch << i'm not sure i follow here...