317200+ entries in 0.202s
danielpbarron: you know a private key, someone else might know
that private key. neither owns it
danielpbarron: there is no ownership in bitcoin, except
that satoshi owns all of it
solrodar: but I know some people say
this doesn't apply
to bitcoin
solrodar: since
the sender never intended
to
transfer ownership
to
that person
solrodar: my argument is
that a mistaken payment may have changed possession of
the money, but not ownership of it
PeterL: has mp asked people
to return it?
danielpbarron: I was not
the recipient of
the double funds, but if I had been I would surely keep it
solrodar: seriously, I
think you should return it whether you believe in
the bible or not
danielpbarron: you who doesn't believe
the Bible are going
to say what someone who beileves in
the Bible should do?
danielpbarron: if it's charitable
to return
then it isn't immoral
to keep
PeterL: I would call it charitable
to return
the money
solrodar: you
try
to pay your rent, but make a
typo and send
the money
to me instead
danielpbarron: you still haven't explained what's moral about returning
the money
solrodar: no, because nobody here except you gives a crap what
the bible says
solrodar: I'm sure I could find some law about unjust enrichment in
the bible if I looked hard enough
solrodar: I was wondering
the same
thing
PeterL: but what does
this have
to do with returning mistakenly gifted coins?
PeterL: It does not matter who
the
true mother was,
the one who wanted him
to live was deemed a better mother
danielpbarron: 26
Then
the woman whose son was living spoke
to
the king, for she yearned with compassion for her son; and she said, "O my lord, give her
the living child, and by no means kill him!" But
the other said, "Let him be neither mine nor yours, but divide him." 27 So
the king answered and said, "Give
the first woman
the living child, and by no means kill him; she is his mother." 28 And all Israel heard of
the judgment which
the ki
danielpbarron: Thus
they spoke before
the king. 23 And
the king said, "The one says, 'This is my son, who lives, and your son is
the dead one'; and
the other says, 'No! But your son is
the dead one, and my son is
the living one.'" 24
Then
the king said, "Bring me a sword." So
they brought a sword before
the king. 25 And
the king said, "Divide
the living child in
two, and give half
to one, and half
to
the other."
danielpbarron: And
the first woman said, "No! But
the dead one is your son, and
the living one is my son."
danielpbarron: 22
Then
the other woman said, "No! But
the living one is my son, and
the dead one is your son."
danielpbarron: 1 Kings 3:16 Now
two women who were harlots came
to
the king, and stood before him. 17 And one woman said, "O my lord,
this woman and I dwell in
the same house; and I gave birth while she was in
the house. 18
Then it happened,
the
third day after I had given birth,
that
this woman also gave birth. And we were
together; no one was with us in
the house, except
the
two of us in
the house. 19 And
this woman's son died in
the nig
shinohai: danielpbarron got
to admit
things were simpler in
times when decisions involved swords.
nubbins`: my belief in
the matter doesn't change
the logic
tho, hey?
solrodar: I doubt you'd believe
that if you had lost a large sum of money by sending it
to
the wrong person by mistake
nubbins`: whether
their name is snackman or mircea_popescu
nubbins`: tl;dr adults are responsible for
the consequences of
their actions
nubbins`: solrodar i don't
think any such moral obligation exists.
solrodar: both bettors have a moral obligation
to return
the money, it's just
that one of
them is identifiable and
the other one isn't
PeterL: <nubbins`> hmm davout are you really going
to withhold bet payouts
to bettors who were unlucky enough
to receive free money from mp's personal funds << so if person A used separate addresses for bets and person B used
the same address on multiple bets, A gets more money and B gets less?
nubbins`: will be interesting
to see what decision is made
solrodar: nubbins`: it's logical
to reduce payments
to
those addresses if and only if if davout decides MP's double payment can be charged
to
the company
nubbins`: "GPG signed contracts are no good if
they can't be enforced." actually
they've fulfilled
their purpose precisely as intended here
nubbins`: last sentence of quoted
text says exactly
this
nubbins`: <+asciilifeform>punkman:
they pay from own pockets? <<
that's my understanding
too
nubbins`: also, a
thousand lels at
the guy who suggested
the double-paid bettors just return
the funds
nubbins`: hmm davout are you really going
to withhold bet payouts
to bettors who were unlucky enough
to receive free money from mp's personal funds
punkman: what happens
to "minimum value" if
the liquidation nets less
than 100 btc
though?
davout: and regarding S.BBET specifically
there's 3.2 (a) reading "The representatives of BitBet have elected
to divide BitBet into 10`000`000 (ten million) equal non-voting shares with a
total equity value of 100 BTC (0.00001 BTC each). In
the event of liquidation or breach of
this Agreement
they solemnly promise and warrant
to repay all investors holding shares at
this minimum value."
davout: punkman:
the idea of a receivership is
that you sell assets, use
the cash
to pay outstanding claims,
the rest, if any, goes
to shareholder
BingoBoingo: asciilifeform: But
the 0-conf bet would have been wrong before approval. 0-conf Bets made
the BitBet mixer go around
BingoBoingo: Way
to repay bitbet was crystal clear
too. Propose 1+1=2 and bet on no.
danielpbarron: why should anyone send coin back? as far as
they should be concerned
the extra payment had nothing
to do with bitbet
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 09:32:38; davout: basically is saying
that one of
the addresses included in
the double payout got paid
twice ~11 btc and has over 50 btc in pending bet payouts
BingoBoingo: Aha, I knew it would happen, but I didn't know it would happen
this early.
The reciever is now burdened with CHOICE.
☟︎ danielpbarron: i get it, but if 1foo had never used
that address for payout again, you'd never know which address
to withhold from
davout: double-dividends is something
that's much easier
to fix :)
davout: I'm going
to check
that everything
that was paid against currently unpaid/unresolved/open bets matches
the cash mp sent me, and if so
there won't really be a point in checking
that
davout: if bitbet made it until now without
this problem, it's probably a good indicator
that such a
thing never happened before
punkman: are you gonna look for older double-payouts
too?
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
☟︎☟︎ davout: basically is saying
that one of
the addresses included in
the double payout got paid
twice ~11 btc and has over 50 btc in pending bet payouts
☟︎ BingoBoingo: It's nice
to be able
to cover good news in
the republic, its been a rough month for
that.
mircea_popescu: speaking of van der waals forces, apparently
they've finally managed
to make
the spiderman suit.
diametric: my favorite is still
the giant
thermochromatic cock
diametric: thats actually not
the one i got, hangon.
diametric: its
the clear
thing held down by
the frame
diametric: nah
the vat is made out of a
thin layer of FEP, so its like a clear rubber
diametric: basically
the vat for curing
the SLA layers on is flexible, so when
the print moves up a layer,
the whole vat deforms in order
to overcome
the van der waals effect
diametric: some interesting vat related stuff on
the sla side
diametric: asciilifeform: its funny you bring up 3d printing, i just returned from
the midwest reprap festival
mircea_popescu: twas in my head closer
to "you know, printer in 1930"
than "you know, starbux barrista"
diametric: about
the same as walking around a major city i imagine.
mircea_popescu: diametric so what's
the
toxicity profile like, for
the activity broadly speaking ?
diametric: asciilifeform: most people use pla. it's a lot easier
to deal with. abs requires higher
temps and a heated bed. but recently
there are a lot of people printing with petg, and various composites. i just saw some "ironfill", a blend of iron powder and pla.
phf: mrottenkolber:
things are always obvious until someone does
the work discovery and
then it's "who could've predicted"
mircea_popescu: anyway. apparently all sorts of
thing OTHER
than polycarbonate are #7 now.