log☇︎
316800+ entries in 0.205s
nubbins`: but if i buy a race car for personal use and charge it to the company
nubbins`: as a privately-owned corporation, i can do pretty much whatever the fuck i want
trinque: but yes you can do that
PeterL: thank you for clearing that up for me , davout
davout: PeterL: there is no "should"
trinque: now if kakobrekla and mircea_popescu disagree on this point... here we are!
PeterL: so either way, the recipients should not send back funds
trinque: nubbins`: can you invest your own money in your business which is then use to pay liabilites of said business?
davout: if mp's claim is rejected because he did not in fact act on behalf of bbet, he simply made a gracious donation to random folks of his own volition
jurov: and it did not use that to settle later claims
davout: in other words, if mp's claim on bbet is approved, it means he was acting on behalf of bbet, which means bbet can consider the same claim settled twice and deduct the amount from further payouts
asciilifeform: davout: but say the 1st tx went into dev/null as mircea_popescu intended it to when sending the 2nd. would the bettors have been wronged ?
trinque: if he acts as the business and declares it as so how can it be otherwise?
nubbins`: there's precedent for the latter
davout: asciilifeform: i think the matter becomes mucho clearer if you ask yourself "did bbet pay twice or did bbet pay once with mp coming along later for a gracious donation to the same recipients"
asciilifeform: trinque: and ultimately davout has the scalpel now. but i can still ~say~ to him, 'hey listen up the liver is ~that~ way'
PeterL: this "vehement opposition" is weak sauce when compared to partisan politic disciples
nubbins`: fwiw all the dealings are public
trinque: all of it smacks of us being a part of some aggregate whose opinion matters in the private dealings of those present.
nubbins`: no, i have a terrible memory, it borders on pathology
nubbins`: i've never seen such vehement opposition to simple discussion of factual events as i've seen in here the past few weeks
asciilifeform: trinque: i have no standing whatsoever re bbet. but the matter is in the forum, fwiw. so we comment.
nubbins`: i'm under no illusions that what i say is binding on anyone
nubbins`: you guys are the ones taking me seriously or not
trinque: lets make a congress to pass some laws so this never happens again
nubbins`: trinque your argument is: the public doesn't get to lambast those who do poor business?
trinque: the fuck is this committee action
asciilifeform: trinque: seems like the bettors were ~never~ promised payouts ~from particular addr~
trinque: nubbins`: and you're not one of them
trinque: and if that causes a dispute among the board of said company, well, here we are.
nubbins`: trinque one of the owners decided this, yeah...
trinque: if an owner of a business decides that address Y is now the payout address for something instead of X, fuck you, it is.
asciilifeform: davout: esp if the slope is not the least bit slippery, much as some folks might like to pour soap on it
trinque: this conversation is well downstream from the much more important question of *whose decision it about what a business they own does*
nubbins`: then you're back to straight-up incompetence, releasing two separate-input tx's into the wild for the same bill.
asciilifeform: nubbins`: and not 'from mysterymeat to mysterymeat'
asciilifeform: nubbins`: both tx were for ~every~ purpose, from bbet, to bettors.
nubbins`: asciilifeform so why didn't bbet monitor payout addresses, and cancel any payments to wallets which received funds from any source after bet resolution?
kakobrekla: however this was not used - yet
kakobrekla: asciilifeform yes, after the last fuck up i have added a way to specify the resulting tx when bet is resolved and payment is done so we wouldnt be doing two payments for one bet any more (because this obviously doesnt work!!)
PeterL: I think the delay by bitcoin network was assumed to be okay
asciilifeform: so this time it was broken by paying them ccc - e coin at time t - t', ahead of schedule.
asciilifeform: every time payouts were delayed.
asciilifeform: t - was specified. and this condition was, yes, broken
asciilifeform: it was rather 'ccc coin to addr specified at bet time, at time t'
asciilifeform: so it was NOT 'ccc coin from addr aaa at time t'
asciilifeform: kakobrekla: this answers, i think, my question of 'what exactly was it that bbet promised winners'
trinque: which turd stinks moar?
kakobrekla: im not even sure what is being argued here but i feel it might relevant that proof of payment on bbet was always ambiguous - there was no explicit thing showing the payment - the most explicit was the lack of complaints
asciilifeform: PeterL: iirc it is in the lee sedol comments.
asciilifeform: ;;later tell pete_dushenski any idea what talmud says about all this ?
PeterL: has anybody added up how much the doublepsent addresses have left deposited in bbet?
asciilifeform: nubbins`: then irreconcilably different premises, aha, and i have no moar wordz.
nubbins`: you don't get to claim a third party handing me cash as your own payment.
nubbins`: you believe the two entities to be one
asciilifeform: nubbins`: BUT if i owed you 100, and he dropped 100, and i say 'i paid', and kakobrekla does not contest this claim - you've been paid.
nubbins`: which is why we're talking past each other
nubbins`: which brings us back to your assertion that bbet=mp and my assertion that bbet!=mp
nubbins`: he can bill it to you
nubbins`: if kako then drops another 100btc down my chimney
asciilifeform: if i promise that you will be 100btc richer tomorrow, and i choose to pay you by dropping it from an airplane into your chimney, so long as no one else contests that it was i who dropped - the debt is paid.
nubbins`: it was promised to be paid and it was paid
asciilifeform: jurov: this is a leap into neverneverland. but operating using the ORIGINAL premise of bbet, where coin is owed to ADDRESS, is not.
PeterL: bitcoin is fungible, it does not matter to the recipient where it came from
jurov: asciilifeform: really, since bitcoin makes whole wallets analyzable, why not apply the blame to whole wallet? moar justice!!!
PeterL: just hypothetical trying to understand your position
nubbins`: PeterL why, did that happen?
PeterL: nubbins` what if MP was travelling when bet resolves, pays somebody to send txn to bet winners, do those payments not count because they don't come directly from bbet wallet?
nubbins`: but apparently that's off the table
nubbins`: what you're to do is stop willfully being illogical
asciilifeform: nubbins`: what am i to do, half the folks i talk to killfiled other half
jurov: "assign credit/debt to addresses" is kinda slippery slope, why not go beyond it and try to analyze and put together addresses in wallets and assign credit/debt to these?
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: though oddly enough he was arguing your side of the medal !
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: you can safely skip the preceding thread, it is a nubsism
asciilifeform: and i have yet to read of a bbet user who wrote in, 'fuck you! i got my 22.222 btc but i can't be sure from whom and for what! pay up!'
asciilifeform: if either ALONE would have satisfied the creditors, they were then idempotent !
kakobrekla: i find the distinction quite irrelevant
asciilifeform: tell me that they would not, then you will have an argument
nubbins`: you can't analogize what happened to what didn't happen
nubbins`: but that's not what happened.
asciilifeform: they would consider themselves fairly repaid ?
nubbins`: you claim to see from the perspective of others now?
asciilifeform: say they had received only ONE of them.
asciilifeform: from the perspective of the recipients
asciilifeform: nubbins`: both payments were quite clearly 'from bbet' tho.
nubbins`: back to my example: you owe me $10, kako pays me $10, and now he claims you owe HIM $10.
asciilifeform: nubbins`: i see what you did there.
asciilifeform: and not from imaginary animals sitting at the controls.
asciilifeform: what i'm saying is that obligation was from bbet-addr to bettor-addr.
nubbins`: asciilifeform so now you're saying that bbet=mp?
nubbins`: hence why in all the stock warrants it says specifically that the entity will not administer blah blah between third parties
asciilifeform: nubbins`: except that it is not external.
nubbins`: i'm not responsible for de-spaghettifying things external to my transactions
kakobrekla: asciilifeform but that also makes it clear who is to blame for bbet shutdown. and not its not the bettors who got two payments.
asciilifeform: it was given B - e at time T - q. Now, condition C.
asciilifeform: address was owed B btc at time T if condition C.
nubbins`: asciilifeform not impossible, no. the windfall recipients know who owned each parcel of funds
kakobrekla: asciilifeform i agree with that.
asciilifeform: kakobrekla: aha! so treat the obligation as to the inanimate object: the ADDRESS.
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 18:13:33; asciilifeform: these are supposed to be ~people~