253600+ entries in 0.079s
mircea_popescu: i thought nubbins was contemplating a genderbendin' surgical intervention.
mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes only if you're willing to cut noobs entirely loose
mircea_popescu: BFL the "Exchange" , pirate the asic manufacturer, woodcutter the ponzi scheme...
mircea_popescu: what do we do once they simply start repeating names ?
mircea_popescu: these guys "delisted" at a 25% buyback that they didn't really honor
mircea_popescu: CAVirtex, Canada’s largest and oldest Bitcoin online exchange, is facing a potential class action lawsuit to the tune of $884,880 CAD. The alleged losses were incurred by the lawsuit-bringers after the company offered 10% of its shares for sale on the cryptocurrency-based asset exchange, Havelock Investments then stopped listing the stock by the end of 2013.
mircea_popescu: static char line_buf[LINE_COUNTER_BUF_LEN] = { ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', '0', '\t', '\0' };
mircea_popescu: a codebase that's written by a monkey is more liable to attact "do-ocracy" monkeys than one written by a sane person.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform no, just the power ranger lot. they'd have (i optimistically assume) been excluded / self out-selected if the satoshi actually understood programming.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform it does, unfortunately, mean that they who did forget / never had what to forget can pass for "geniuses"
mircea_popescu: you can, if you wish, implement a function that returns "equibranches" on a tree.
mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes no asciilifeform put it in proper terms. it's a tree.
mircea_popescu: think of it as "chain of pointers" and now tell me who the fuck doesn't flunk the idiot that actually keeps an enumeration array for the chain
mircea_popescu: like sending you to hunt for snipes so yo ucan't be a huner)
mircea_popescu: this is nonsense of the first order, an utter antipattern, and iof they weren't stupid as frogs i'd suspect its deliberate
mircea_popescu: (another bit of braindamage th epower rangers forced upon the world, other than "historical transaction validity" as a thing, is "block as aheight"
mircea_popescu: the notion of N must be subordinate ot the blocks only identifier, its hash
mircea_popescu: best have ppl that spoeak the language tlel you what the paper says.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform the reason, incidentally, i didn';t read it myself is i dun trust my rudimentary c understanding.
mircea_popescu: nah, ben_vulpes only scammed participant. neglected to send 2.x ended up sending 8.x
mircea_popescu: nah, just, i know what qs to ask of people. "go read it and i'll ask you things"
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform you're in teh list arentcha ? he asked me specifically to confirm. you're also confirmed!
mircea_popescu: i suppose it is a testament to my scholarship that i can actually get away with outsourcing the actual readsing ?
mircea_popescu: how about the production of communications to include voice << im not sure right off what that'd do.
mircea_popescu: <mats> mircea_popescu: are you interested in loosening the requirements? << perhaps. do you see meaningful expansions ?
mircea_popescu: buttonwood_> There has to be a better way to do otc trades tho. << nope. isn't, for provable reason. isn't happening in practice, either.
mircea_popescu: <mats> multi sig and escrow are essentially bad patches to a broken trust model << mats is like the oracle on the topic now!
mircea_popescu: <buttonwood_> I've been really interested in applying the smart contract technology to bitcoin-otc. Are there currently any active smart contracts or oracles doing escrow trading on bitcoin irc ? << no. people do thje trust calculation by hand.
mircea_popescu: what's being verified is a) control of the address in question and b) bitcoin feeding it included in a block.
mircea_popescu: A. Here's proof i control address X, and here's a payment of 500 btc to it *included in block Y*
mircea_popescu: maybe the reason we've talked so long about this is because we're saying the same thing/
mircea_popescu: you can't have "these are the valid and these are the invalid txn of block 6"
mircea_popescu: but once in a block, all you can have is a confirmed block.
mircea_popescu: see ? that's the whole thing. that these two are separate.
mircea_popescu: the reason ytou know block 5 is a valid block IS that they were valid outputs, or was at the time, but this is a separate topic.
mircea_popescu: but the reason you know they're valid outputs is that block 5 is a valid block.
mircea_popescu: 1 btc from block 5, 1.5 btc also from block 5, 2 btc from block 6 -> 4.5 btc to 1derp
mircea_popescu: but if they are different outputs, included in variuous blocks... they're verifiable by those blocks... ?