log☇︎
260200+ entries in 0.079s
mircea_popescu: if i die tomorrow who will maintain my wot ?
mircea_popescu: which ius no different from the current situation
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform you still have an old list.
mircea_popescu: lol. the actual ship mircea is an old barque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_(ship)
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform well, disgorge on handshake but yea
mircea_popescu: incidentally, the evolution of this dev session clearly proves the superiority of chat over say bbs, of which forums and trilema comments are implementations.
mircea_popescu: this is ideal.
mircea_popescu: for all practical purposes i am his 3rd split personality, a figment of his rich imagination.
mircea_popescu: however, if you only know asciilifeform and he;'s relying my chat,
mircea_popescu: without a requirement to sign.
mircea_popescu: and if i am in your list and you in mine the same is preserved by gossipd.
mircea_popescu: artifexd so if it is.
mircea_popescu: the only entity served by this nonsense is nsa. users don't actually exist, outside of what the parties you trust say.
mircea_popescu: moreover, i wish to take this opportunity and link the important point of the "unsheathe your sword". inasmuch as people proceed on the "user objectively exists" and then try to "create anonimity" the unavoidable result is "anonimity is hard lolz".
mircea_popescu: this "objective existence of user" is a trap in our task here. it doesn' tserve, it hinders.
mircea_popescu: in the sense your friend sayus he does.
mircea_popescu: artifexd you have a clue : either your friend, or someone who only exists
mircea_popescu: i can use it later.
mircea_popescu: for that matter, imagine a "No" string signed. what now ?
mircea_popescu: than sign a contract there.
mircea_popescu: well, i don't. i more often have sex with someone in the bus
mircea_popescu: do you ordinarily sign contracts with people you chat with in the bus ?
mircea_popescu: because it's chat.
mircea_popescu: good idea that bb.
mircea_popescu: so ?
mircea_popescu: right.
mircea_popescu: why ?
mircea_popescu: in fact, for all you know A sends whole different novels to B and C.
mircea_popescu: nothing.
mircea_popescu: don't trust people you don't trust and so you won't have to answer unpleasant questions from people whose trust you value.
mircea_popescu: his job to police his lists.
mircea_popescu: so ?
mircea_popescu: hm ?
mircea_popescu: no, it's not an oversight.
mircea_popescu: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=05-01-2015#966081 also. ☝︎
mircea_popescu: there's no signing in there, is there ?
mircea_popescu: which part.
mircea_popescu: each server compiles wot list for use of its user from helos received
mircea_popescu: each server maintains his wot ratings, and theyt are sent out as part of hello procedure
mircea_popescu: no.
mircea_popescu: how so ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform sure, but not the same thing.
mircea_popescu: since by very definition gestapo can't trust A B C
mircea_popescu: jurov ^
mircea_popescu: perfect deniability, much better than forward secrecy
mircea_popescu: anyway, THAT is why not signed messages.
mircea_popescu: aham
mircea_popescu: depends, from an hour up
mircea_popescu: lettuce continue this convo while asciilifeform feels all left out :D
mircea_popescu: answer't.
mircea_popescu: it... didn't eat your comment lol
mircea_popescu: a there it is.
mircea_popescu: is this some routing mishmashing or something ?
mircea_popescu: artifexd umm... i see it but not your comment.
mircea_popescu: as assbot's usage over timne has shown
mircea_popescu: the current implementation favours what is fundamewntally an erroneous view of thew wot as "one thing". it is not one thing.
mircea_popescu: which is kind-of why the "total score" nonsense is so hard entrenched.
mircea_popescu: right.
mircea_popescu: there is no center wot.
mircea_popescu: for that matter, a "total score" is nonsense predicated on this mistaken view.
mircea_popescu: thjere is no such thing as "one" wot.
mircea_popescu: necessarioly.
mircea_popescu: each server sends its own view, you compile what interests you.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform that's in the hello message.
mircea_popescu: <blockquote>
mircea_popescu: how you slice the 99% is uninteresting.
mircea_popescu: a 360 baud modem loses 99% of usenet messages out of a pipe which puts out 36kbps worth of messages continuously.
mircea_popescu: yes, because they're not signed nor crypted.
mircea_popescu: it's a chat.,
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform it's not really a log-with-chat.
mircea_popescu: if i were to connect to irc with a 360 baud modem i would similarily lose messages.
mircea_popescu: this is what the definition of "Slow" is.
mircea_popescu: it's okay for slow nodes to lose messages
mircea_popescu: because it's chat. if someone wants to log it, that's a diff story.
mircea_popescu: because not its job.
mircea_popescu: this is likely actually.
mircea_popescu: artifexd ah that's a point. my 1hour was outer limit.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform so ?
mircea_popescu: but basically the bundle should cover the last hour.
mircea_popescu: the messages should be kept around for a short interval (hour ?) while the user can retain them as long as he wants.
mircea_popescu: srsly, no blockchain.
mircea_popescu: meanwhile...
mircea_popescu: http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/trilema.com
mircea_popescu: well i just responded...
mircea_popescu: it's down ?!
mircea_popescu: i'd lobby for that if i were a battery maker.
mircea_popescu: BingoBoingo soon enough there's going to be a "no half empty batteries" rule then.
mircea_popescu: artifexd i wonder if for some god-forsaken reason the shitgnomes never actually considered this obviousness.
mircea_popescu: suppose i make 50k 1btc txn. they don't fit in a 1mn block. they do fit in a 10mb block. what now ?
mircea_popescu: since one contains more txn than the other by definition.
mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes what do you mean ? it necessarily will occur.
mircea_popescu: (if it were that simple, teh enemies wouldn't be going through all the gymnastics & eating up all the frogs)
mircea_popescu: the only way to guard against it is, obviously,for the "large" chain to maintain 1:1 identity with the "small" one. because you don't just fork bitcoin.,
mircea_popescu: the attempt may fail, but the cost to me of this failure is not significant, so i can keep on trying until it succeeds.
mircea_popescu: now i have bitcoin separated in two addresses, one for each chain.
mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes if one block's large and the other small, all i need a tx that's included in the large block but not the small one. then doublespend it on the small one, which will be rejected necessarily by the large block blockchain
mircea_popescu: artifexd yes, it could, of course.
mircea_popescu: qui facit per alium facit per se sort of "for"
mircea_popescu: but it's for as in, "i am doing in the name of x, ie, for x"
mircea_popescu: artifexd i guess in retrospect the use of "for" was misguided. chetty warned me, too.