238900+ entries in 0.148s
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform
the ratings of dead people are meaningless in
the marketplace ; and only interesting
to
the inept historian.
trinque: or "every user of
this system accepts my judgement on
the movement of coin wholly, or uses something else"
mircea_popescu: i don't have a very strong opinion on
the signing of payment orders. i suppose it's a
tradeoff of convenience vs corectness.
trinque: I certainly would want
to be able
to show
that I moved even latte money in accordance with someone's agreement.
trinque: right, so
then I've cleaved
the nature of
the
two systems in my own mind.
mircea_popescu: whether
they also should is i suppose in discussion here ?
mircea_popescu: so
that settles
that. nevertheless, orders
to pay CAN have
to be signed, because obviously
they will be opposed
to
the maker during settling of accounts.
mircea_popescu: and for
this reason ratings can't have
to be signed -
they can never be opposed
to
the maker.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: whether he did or didn't or did a bum job of it or anything isn't even at issue -
the oppositive quality of facts distingushes
them from mere meaning just like
the
thumb stands out on
the hand.
mircea_popescu: and re
the facts/fiction discussion : a very good rule of
thumb
to distinguish fact from fiction is right here - can it be opposed
to anyone ? for instance,
trump's election is a fact, and here it is a fact because i have opposed it
to alf
to force him
to reconsider his political evaluator.
mircea_popescu: there's
two reasons one does not wish
to be cavallier with signed matter. one is purely
technological, as discussed briefly above, but
the more important one is ecology of
the republic of
the mind. you wish
to make
THE STRICT MINIMUM of signed statements you can get by with AND NOT A SINGLE MORE.
trinque: it would be flooding
the world with
things you have
to one by one argue against in court, more or less
mircea_popescu: in fact, you can not at any point raise any objection
to any of my ratings.
they're whatever
they are and you're more
than welcome
to go hang,
there's no "detrimental reliance" on
them for you.
trinque: this I can see, much better
than earlier protests
that "it's not necessary", meaning no ill
towards danielpbarron
mircea_popescu: and herein included - all my ratings. you can not at some point come and say "X scammed me of a btc and you had him rated +1
therefore you owe me some cents"
mircea_popescu: not
that
there's anything wrong with stealing from
the wise.
mircea_popescu: anyway. merchant law, which incidentally i advise all curious minds
to review, not only long predates civil law or
the british mandaciousa attempts
to enact a systematized "common law" as older
than it was - but actually informed all legal work of
the states.
they basically stole
the merchant's code much like
the french stole
the
templar's wealth.
trinque: I can see
that I'm opposing massive precedent behind what signing means.
mircea_popescu: "you owe me 5 guilders" "this writ says i don't". "i never meant for my daughter
to be chained
to
the post naked for all comers" "then why does
this offer her ?" etc.
mircea_popescu: well see part of
the problem is merchant law. so :
there's
two kinds of writs, one of which can be opposed
to
the author, which is
to say if he later makes a claim, anyone with standing (like
the guy he's making
the claim against) can oppose
the writ.
mircea_popescu: and
there's a damned good reason you don't, nor is it a service you offer :
the difficulty of "looking at
the data, establish its validity" exceeds building
the ai.
mircea_popescu: all i want
to know from you if such a situation is discovered is if you did it or not.
a111: Logged on 2016-12-02 19:56
trinque: how do I currently know by looking at my database
that no item in it was altered by somebody spraying bits into my server via network card -> dma
mircea_popescu: if you construct
the signing infrastructure,
there's a river with a railway bridge. however, segments may be missing ; and
this can't be known.
mircea_popescu: trinque
the problem here is like so : if you don't sign
the stuff, you have a river, which will have
to be forded. people wanting
to get across know what
they're doing - fording a river.
mircea_popescu: which is how
there exist
these washpo
that is a reputable source, qntra
that is a spamsite etc.
trinque: only about
the existence of
that material in
the eyes of
the signer
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform enemy already does
this ; so does your gf. everyone you come into contact with is fabricating a fictional you from
the whole cloth of
their head.
trinque: that I hold signed material does not say something about
the state of
the world
mircea_popescu: there have
to be layers. my hitting return is "this statement was made" ; my signing should be "this statement was made with a view of it being opposable
to
the maker".
trinque: maybe you signed contract A at one point,
then signed B which brought about
termination of A, and I don't have B
trinque: by
the holder of
the pen^H^H^Hkey
mircea_popescu: i'm not about
to give
the wolf a falx on
top of everything.
trinque: signed does not mean
true in my view.
a111: Logged on 2016-12-02 19:52 danielpbarron: i
thought
this was already done in
the log : suppose i give +5 one day and -10
the next? without
the latter it would appear i
trust
the guy -- WITH SIGNATURE!!!
trinque: but asciilifeform yes, along
the ephemeral/gossip vs mark-of-cain fault line?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform and note
that
the only fact in your list of facts is my dying. which imparts some fact-flavour
to
the rest of
the string.
mircea_popescu: trinque i don't
think you did, but we ended up with a whole front here and since we're discussing it let's discuss altogether.
mircea_popescu: this notion
that ratings encode some sort of single unified pointed scalar
truth has got
to die already. it's not only very stupid, it's actually in
the way.
mircea_popescu: to A i shall say "and he doesn't snore" and
to B i shall say "he's a patient sort"
a111: Logged on 2016-12-02 19:50 asciilifeform: i dun see
the 'win' from encouraging people
to byzantiate and
twofaced lie and give different answer
to X and
to Y regarding how
they rate Z.
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-02#1576528 <<
they have
to.
there is no "one" answer. suppose
the case where i rate someone X as a 3 because i dunno, we go fishing. suppose A asks me about X because he's contemplating going hunting, and B asks me about X because he's contemplating playing chess.
☝︎ mats: asciilifeform: i wonder how many people actually
thought entitlements like SS, Medicare, would live forever...
mircea_popescu: no whatever infrastructure development fund, i have nfi,
the whole
thing's vague as fake hair.
mats: mircea_popescu:
talking about killing medicare?
mircea_popescu: trinque facts don't encode anything.
that's what it's like
to be a fact - you may only be interpreted, but exist outside and above any meaning.
trinque: is not
the binary number which represents a rating a fact, which encodes a meaning?
mircea_popescu: trinque i believe
the correct pill
to
this would be
to keep
the moving sums small, rather
than fucking
the mechanism.
trinque: mircea_popescu:
there are many enemies with many means of attack
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform nothing
transforms
the rng bits into fact.
they were fact, from
the beginning, owing
to
the absence of meaning.
mircea_popescu: trinque is
this different from "you were
tricked into making false payments by secret owner of all rsa keys" ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform no. and
this confusion between fact and fiction driven by
the engineering perspective
that "oh it is a fact
TO ME" eventually ends up with usg and
the "fact" of "fake media"
trinque: narrowing
the hole for
that.
mircea_popescu: trinque so basically,
to understand
this,
the problem you are working against is
this situation where you are
tricked into making false payments by a secret owner of your hardware ?
trinque takes it back. seems
to require access
to my private key for anyone else
to believe it.
trinque: provided other people see me send
this encrypted OTP
to another
trinque: hm. you know what. if I stockpile encrypted OTP material which is also encrypted
to my own key, I suppose it does
the same.
trinque: this model is also applicable using OTP, I'm aware, but while it proves something
to *me*, it doesn't prove it
to anyone else.
trinque: in
the case of
the wallet, I have something I can verify before and every
time I move coin
trinque: i.e. I immediately spray all signed material
to a box whose only function is
to back up
the pile of signed incoming statements, and over a serial diode.
trinque: only defense against
this I can see is warehousing what was said and being able
to verify
that it was said out of band
trinque: except
that it has also secret levers which can be pulled over
the network card with a magic packet and all other sorts of nonsense
trinque: the bare state of
the data is
the fact meant
mircea_popescu: a rating you mean ? but a rating isn't an opinion, it's an advertisement. much like an offer in a magazine is a
tender not a deal.
trinque: it is a fact
that I have spoken
this opinion at
this
time
a111: Logged on 2016-12-02 19:49
trinque: danielpbarron: how do you justify signing anything by
this logic ?
trinque: in
the case of both WoT and wallet, from an engineers perspective I have a database which changes state when outside parties
tell it.
mircea_popescu: trinque what do you mean by fucking up
the db in
that context as something else was being contemplated when i said it ?
mircea_popescu: because we've decided
to live in
the world as it is rather
than wait for someone else (who ?)
to make a better one
trinque: I am for example not willing
to do
the wallet if fucking up
the db is possible.