320400+ entries in 0.203s
phf: i'm a slow
thinker, so i'm
taking my
time
jurov: cmon, i genuinely want
to learn what are you onto
jurov: phf also judge will prevent
the discussion how?
jurov: but i already did
that short of negrating him, why would i need a judge?
phf: instead
the solution is what?
to spend a bunch more days repeating same positions over and over again until you leave in disgust, people who are already on
the mp side are galvanized, etc.?
☟︎ phf: jurov:
there's no "centrally"
jurov: for one person
to decide centrally
jurov: for me
that question boils down
to judge deciding if mircea_popescu acted in good faith or not acc.
to agreement.. which is likely not a good
thing
phf: jurov: but overall, all
that is for us
to figure out, yeah?
the "judge" in
this case is one of our peers, can look at what
transpired, present an opinion, "it is
the opinion of
this judged, having considered all facts available,
that mp done goofed". mp can go "well fuck you judge", you can go "that's a fair assessment", negrate mp and move on
☟︎ phf: jurov:
that second question is a lot more relevant
to
the issue
then a lot of
things
that's been said so far
jurov: phf but how can
the judge decide without precedent? was
the problem of appropriate expenses for zerofee corporations put into law or any such
test?
phf: jurov: 17 btc issue is possibly covered by agreement, possibly not, requires investigation. question of who was paying for server is irrelevant
to
the ~issue~, not even mentioned anywhere in corporate paperwork, and also produced zero issues so far
that were publicly discussed
assbot: Logged on 14-03-2016 16:33:32; phf: i
think
this question is receiving far less attention
then
the alleged miner collusion. i would've liked
to see it approached
through a judge (perhaps moon is a harsh mistress style "would you be our judge?"), a carefully constructed paper, an investigation, rather
than bickering in logs. i
think
the question is also separate from receivership and is about ensuring
that
the rest of
tmsr maintain a shared vision
jurov: phf, so my conclusion
that such compartmentalization is prone
to problems, wouls be pointless rimshot
too?
phf: jurov:
that's a pointless rim shot,
that is representative of
the level of discourse so far.
trinque: it is entirely my point
that it is a question of practicality and not categorical unpossibleness
jurov: phf indeed, assigning
the 17btc
to shareholders is failure of
the compartmentalization
trinque: but shout some more about
the infinite value of yourself
phf: the logs, some people had a conversation about it,
that is all.
phf: there's an utter lack of compartmentalization going on here.
the way bitbet is structured is explicit in
the contract. only aspect of
the operation
that's under consideration is "recieve bets,
take percentage, pay out", because
that's all
that shareholders are party
to. everything else is between kako and mp and
that aspect worked for
them. at no point was
this arrangement publicly ~questioned~ by any party involved. i spelled it out in
trinque: it is not categorically impossible
to buy your
time
☟︎ trinque: asciilifeform: your
time lacks a price because nobody bought it
jurov: where does
that come from?
jurov: well,
that "someone" whose work "cannot be
traded" still has
to eat
☟︎ trinque: I was
there for
the original
thread.
trinque: there's nothing
that precludes a market of v implementations categorically
☟︎ jurov: you see 'v' is exactly
the one-time
thing.
time spent by resolving bets, managing
the wallet and such is much easier
to quantify
assbot: Logged on 12-09-2015 18:04:11; asciilifeform: 'All of
this "code sharing" is an economic surplus phenomenon. It works only when none of
the people involved in it are in any form of need. As soon as
the need arises, a lot of people discover
that it has cost
them real money
to work for
the community and
they reap very little benefit from it, because
they are sharing value-less services and getting value out of something
that people
take for grant
jurov: but
the maintenance on ongoing basis, needs a prolly a better agreement
jurov: if it was one-time development paid from
the IPO,
then fine
jurov: yes, i understand it
too. i only don't understand
the "can't be valued" part.
assbot: Logged on 14-03-2016 18:21:42; mircea_popescu:
the latter part come at an end at some point last year, when he asked
to have it included in
the cost structure. i pointed out
to him
then
that if i correspondingly add my expenses in, we might as well close it.
phf: that was an answer
to a solrodar's intentionally pointed question about costs of hosting vs. mp's "time", which was in
term prompted by my attempt
to understand how bitbet works
☟︎ assbot: Logged on 14-03-2016 19:34:02; mircea_popescu: asciilifeform> << just how deeply in
the red ~was~ bbet, if we consider
this ..? << i dunno man, how much for a night with my slave of your choice ? for me she'll do it for free, you she will not even consider. and
this speaks
to phf's and other's q as
to why assets weren't on
the books since
they can be
trivially enumerated : yes
they can be ; but
they can't be VALUED. what's
the accounting value of
assbot: Logged on 14-03-2016 18:23:03; mircea_popescu: solrodar mno. you may not realise
this, but bitbet has
to date clocked close
to 2k hours of admin
time. and
this is pointedly not minimum wage sort of work.
jurov: it's not about "who
took out
the
trash" but about "who paid
the garbage man"
jurov: asciilifeform: i don't see anything like
that in
this case
jurov: and also if
the "trash disposal" fees were acknowledged, bitbet's precarious financials would be
talked about and resolved much sooner
☟︎ phf: what?
the discussion was started by me,
to clarify my own understanding, at no point did either side
threw expenses at each other. are we even reading same log?
jurov: from
today's log i have learned
that it's important
to report *all* expenses, otherwise
the "did
this or
that for free" arguments become another nail in
the coffin
☟︎ phf: i
think it's entirely normal for
tmsr operation
to not have a bedrock, since we've just spent a year exploring just how rotten bedrock is. hosting, "personal affairs", linguistic and architectural choices, what have you.
phf: ftr i didn't raise
that as a question, i was clarifying how
things are for myself and others.
mircea_popescu: it's neither becoming of your other
talents nor any kind of service
to
the republic.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform your offer
to pay what
the
thing costs is going
to cost us A FUCKING FORTUNE down
the road. you understand
this ?
assbot: Logged on 12-03-2016 03:45:55; mircea_popescu:
there's a graph, it doesn't
touch 1bn.
mircea_popescu: "it was in
the red whatever asciilifeform would
take
to babysit 4 years of bitbet and resolve 1.2k bets."
mircea_popescu: solrodar>
they chose not
to charge it
to
the company,
therefore it didn't count <<
this is correct. but he's welcome
to consider counterfactuals also. just - shouldn't expect me
to present factuals for counterfactuals, should write his own story himself!
mircea_popescu: obviously enumerable, impossible
to evaluate. and incidentally - how many fucking weekedns omfg!
kakobrekla: anyway, you cant really make
the horse drink water
mircea_popescu: or in more at-home
terms, what exactly am i going
to put phuctor into
the s.nsa books as ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform> << just how deeply in
the red ~was~ bbet, if we consider
this ..? << i dunno man, how much for a night with my slave of your choice ? for me she'll do it for free, you she will not even consider. and
this speaks
to phf's and other's q as
to why assets weren't on
the books since
they can be
trivially enumerated : yes
they can be ; but
they can't be VALUED. what's
the accounting value of bitbet codebase ?
☟︎ mircea_popescu: asciilifeform>
this is
the historic norm, when
there was no blockchain, only stone knives and bearskins. << yeah, and guess why.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform> which is,
to define 'being paid in btc' as 'be shown a valid
tx
that pays you' << o no fucking way jesus christ.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform> mircea_popescu described
the high-S
thing as noncontroversial << wasn't
that
the other one ?
mircea_popescu: i have nfi how it works, and imho it actually matters for making sense of
the observations. <<
the problem here is
that complete
transparency can not be achieved for practical reasons. if it could have been, have no doubt i would have preferred
to
this "under my seal" report avenue.
☟︎