317100+ entries in 0.191s
mircea_popescu: bitcoin addresses aren't acceptable proof of identity (such as for instance
through
that "signing" kludge) specifically for
this reason.
mircea_popescu: if
this were
the case one'd get one key issued with
the ssn.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform see,
this is how professional life goes. you are paid well
to sit in silence in a room and pick
the right
thread under a microscope ; i am paid even better
to sit in
the din of
the market and pick
the right
thread with bare eyes.
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 14:01:40; solrodar: if any obligation exists between bitbet and a bettor,
the bettor is identified by his key and nothing more
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 13:56:37; mircea_popescu: fine, if you absolutely must : suppose owner made an agreement with a
third party
that
the nth
txn goes
to x and
the nth+1 goes
to y. are
they now bound
to revise
their agreements on
the basis of how you may wish
to liberally reinterpret
the protocol ?
mircea_popescu: and in
the interest of not fucking up everyhing in one fell swoop of well meaning idiocy, "deserve"'d better not enter into it.
nubbins`: asciilifeform
the 13.37 haircut is baked into
the deal, i don't
think any other haircuts are?
mircea_popescu: (and if anyone's unfamiliar with
the hunchback god, plox
to
take a break and read up on
teh gnosis. it'll be good for you.)
mircea_popescu: will
there be judgement day, when all
there is is dark, or will
there be "communism" aka "christianity" aka a hunchback god
tries
to create a world just like he's seen in his sane, healthy brother's hands ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform not
the issue.
the issue is, can you assume or can't you assume. and
the result is you can't assume.
davout: the receiver was already burdened with choice, since he has
to certify, or not, claims
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 12:03:12; BingoBoingo: Aha, I knew it would happen, but I didn't know it would happen
this early.
The reciever is now burdened with CHOICE.
solrodar: you know, a lot of your metaphors are stupid but
that one almost reaches
the level of a zen koan
mircea_popescu: lol k. what you're doing is roughly equivalent
to coming into my house, attempting
to give a name
to one of my women and
then proposing
to exchange her for your own of
the same name.
ty but...
solrodar: didn't
those ideas come from your sense of justice, equity or whatever you call it?
mircea_popescu: it is
the actual
threshold of maturity, when
the agent comprehends
that some
things must be done because of
themselves and irrespective of
their will. usually
this discovery came
to young people who were in love - but society has meanwhile "progressed" past
that.
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 14:20:36; mircea_popescu: solrodar
there's no bitcoin precedent of "unjust enrichment", and if it is introduced it applies first of all
to all miners.
mircea_popescu: davout hey, i can appreciate
the sentiment.
the equations, however, stay cold.
PeterL: more of an "I have no words"
than a problem
davout: maltova and chunks of cloth not so much... desire
to cheer others up, i'd say why not
mircea_popescu: fine, if you must : your question is not even a question in
that it doesn't make any sense.
PeterL: not expecting help, just completely lost as
to where your question connects
to mine?
mircea_popescu: PeterL do you find people are often able
to help you when your problem is "wtf?" ?
mircea_popescu: davout it worked,
that
time, but i wouldn't rely on it!
davout: mircea_popescu:
that way does sound like a good way!
mircea_popescu: PeterL what is
the correct way of cheering your mother up with a
tin of maltova and and a chunk of cloth ?
mircea_popescu: they're meaningful
to us, if risible ; we're not meaningful nor can be rendered meaningful for
them.
PeterL: If block reward is unjust, what is a just way of distributing coin? Or is
that even possible?
mircea_popescu: it is perfectly meaningful in its own proper
terms, which is why
tmsr prevails over any pretend fiat sovereign :
solrodar: if you reject all notions of justice
then
this entire liquidation
thing becomes meaningless
mircea_popescu: promise here being a
term of art standing in opposition with protocol.
mircea_popescu: that it seems justified
to you may make a difference when you're king of
the world and can promise me
to appoint all judges forevermore
to comply with your notions.
PeterL: block reward is payment for work of processing block of
transactions, seems justified
to me
mircea_popescu: much like
the
tmsr license, bitcoin is deliberately constructed a certain way
to destroy fiat notions of
this world, not
to maintain
them nor
to permit
their maintenance.
mircea_popescu: solrodar
there's no bitcoin precedent of "unjust enrichment", and if it is introduced it applies first of all
to all miners.
☟︎ nubbins`: <+solrodar>since
the sender never intended
to
transfer ownership
to
that person <<< mp didn't intend
to
transfer ownership of
the coins involved in a
tx
that he sent?
solrodar: mircea_popescu:
the bettors entered a contract with bitbet,
then you, acting on bitbet's behalf, paid
them
too much by mistake. Even if
there's no property in bitcoin, doesn't
the existence of
that contract allow you
to introduce an argument of unjust enrichment?
mircea_popescu: and for
that matter, are you going
to pay out of pocket for
the costs anyone and everyone incurs
to adapt
to
this model, like nsa via gavin paid (to
their own people) for
their 2013 debacle ?
mircea_popescu: anyway,
take it from a software design perspective. you are proposing
to change
the stateless parser (bet accepted) -> (bet resolved) -> (bet paid out) into a stateful and undefined (bet accepted) -> (bet resolved) -> (???) -> (some
thing paid according
to some rules you can't know)
☟︎ assbot: Logged on 07-01-2016 00:00:47; jurov: input is a reference
to an output from a previous
transaction. output is: a hash of a previous
transaction + Index of
the specific output in
the referenced
transaction.
mircea_popescu: funny how everything is in
the fucking log. dja recall it davout ?
mircea_popescu: this is an eery rehash of
the earlier
thing re "bitcoin is addresses / no it's
txn" where jurov massacred me.
davout: bettor's an address
though, and claims are bound
to addresses, not people, are
they?
mircea_popescu: if you are going
to make other determinations
than who won a bet, might as well put a 50%
tax on
the richest 10% or w/e
the french fashion is
these days.
solrodar: if any obligation exists between bitbet and a bettor,
the bettor is identified by his key and nothing more
☟︎ mircea_popescu: you introduced it, really. but i restated
the issue more formally and without reference
to it.
davout: mircea_popescu: you haven't provided any support for
the notion of "a fellow"
that you introduced, or did i miss it?
solrodar: mircea_popescu: aren't you
the one
that always argues
that
there are no people, only keys? In which case
there's nothing wrong with recovering money from keys. If
the key is controlled by multiple people,
that's
their problem.
mircea_popescu: which is, seal
things in
the past in such a way
they aren't revisable in
the future.
mircea_popescu: it is also very visibly, and very risibly, reaction
to bitcoin, which is
to say a
transparent attempt
to exactly prevent specifically what bitcoin does,
mircea_popescu: fine, if you absolutely must : suppose owner made an agreement with a
third party
that
the nth
txn goes
to x and
the nth+1 goes
to y. are
they now bound
to revise
their agreements on
the basis of how you may wish
to liberally reinterpret
the protocol ?
☟︎ mircea_popescu: davout i am not proposing anything. you are proposing
to introduce some assumptions, which seem ridiculous on
the face, and are invited
to support
them.
davout: the moment you sell a private key it ceases
to be private, and
therefore ceases
to be a private key
solrodar: so we say mircea_popescu controlled a large quantity of bitcoin, and had agreed
to consider a certain quantity of it
the property of bitbet, but
that concept of property does not go beyond any agreement which may have existed between him and bitbet?
mircea_popescu: "you know, react, dissolve, whatever you wanna call it" sorta
thing.
mircea_popescu: PeterL
the difference happens
to be rather important from a legal perspective.
mircea_popescu: but other
than
that - nobody has any
title over any bitcoin nor could anyone acquire any
title over any bitcoin.
PeterL: well, own, controll, whatever you want
to call it
PeterL: that is
the whole point of bitcoin,
to definitively establish who owns it at all
times!
mircea_popescu: solrodar no, because while
the dog might be your dog, bitcoin may not actually be your bitcoin.
PeterL: the bitcoin did not just move accidentally, bitcoin moves when somebody signs a statement "I own
this bitcoin, I am sending it
to address X"
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 09:34:25; davout: more generally, it seems an important
thing
to me
that bettor claims should be adjusted by
the existence of a a previous double-payout, if any
solrodar: and a bitcoin
transaction is equivalent
to such a signed statement?
PeterL: solrodar if you sign a statement "I give my dog
to danielpbarron",
then yes it is his dog, and if you later say oops, I meant
to give it
to bob,
then it is up
to DPB
to give
the dog up, but he does not have
to
danielpbarron: i guess you don't own your fiats either;
the fed does or something
solrodar: danielpbarron: But you evidently apply
the same principle
to fiat bank accounts as well. Anything else? Your dog has just jumped in my window, is it my dog now?
mircea_popescu: yes,
the prepubescent boy is in love ; but what's he going
to do for
the adult woman ? have her WAIT ?
mircea_popescu: and speaking of
this, most everyone involved^H^H^H^H^H^H inloved with bitcoin should insistently watch and rewatch malena, because it is EXACTLY
the situation.
mircea_popescu: so yes, i can appreciate
the sentiment, infantile such as it is. guy means well, i'm sure. but in point of fact he is so far removed from relevancy in any conceivable approach
to
the issues,
that
there's really very little
to be said.
mircea_popescu: seal
top off a bottle of Maltova and attach it
to a piece of fabric with
the loose sewing of a preschooler.