324000+ entries in 0.197s
mircea_popescu: this is very different from
the negative, "it doesn't not work".
mircea_popescu: davout
that's what i mean by positive. yes, "it works".
mircea_popescu: my
telescope, in it being man made not god given, is not much more
than a
tool.
assbot: Logged on 07-03-2016 23:20:09; mircea_popescu: you
think you're running a node, because, symptomatically, in
the windows definition of running code (hey, click items
till it works) you are. but
the sense of running code contemplated for bitcoin is negative, not positive, and you don't know how
to check for
that nor do you specifically care.
☟︎ nubbins`: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 171492 @ 0.00053048 = 90.9731 BTC [-] {5} man, i
think my zinger
triggered
that one
mircea_popescu: it is also
the first
time i've seeing you err on
THIS side ever before.
mircea_popescu: but i dunno how
to carry
that particular discussion in a way
that'd dispose.
davout: asciilifeform: i do not claim I know where it came from, but do note
that 'not being relayed by most nodes' is absolutely not conflicting with 'some dude rebroadcast it because he felt like it'
mircea_popescu: i'm not saying what you're saying is provably impossible. i am saying
to my eyes - it is very improbable.
nubbins`: <+asciilifeform>davout: if it did not satisfy relaying rules, WHERE DID IT COME FROM on day x !? << once
the backlog was cleared, it satisfied relaying rules once again?
mircea_popescu: because
the other miners would have an incentive
to destroy
the miniminer's supernode, and
there's jackl
the miniminer could do
to protect it.
mircea_popescu: back in
the day bitcoin mining was healthy, after a fashion, pools came and went.
they've been stable for a long
time now.
mircea_popescu: anyway, i've been
thinking about your
theory ever since, but i don't credit it asciilifeform. for one
thing, it's unstable. seriously, supernode and miniminer ? it'd get
torn apart.
davout: asciilifeform: it might also very well be
that most nodes use similar relay policies and
that A1 simply didn't satisfy
the relaying rules
gribble: omg you guize i
think he's actually just gonna pretend he hasn't defrauded bitbet and breached
two sections of
the contract
nubbins`: ;;echo omg you guize i
think he's actually just gonna pretend he hasn't defrauded bitbet and breached
two sections of
the contract
mircea_popescu: you
think you're running a node, because, symptomatically, in
the windows definition of running code (hey, click items
till it works) you are. but
the sense of running code contemplated for bitcoin is negative, not positive, and you don't know how
to check for
that nor do you specifically care.
☟︎ gribble: but where does
that leave
the 17 btc of your own funds
that you put on bitbet's liability sheet?
nubbins`: ;;echo but where does
that leave
the 17 btc of your own funds
that you put on bitbet's liability sheet?
mircea_popescu: or if you prefer, see phf's example with "my friend,
the kgb agent"
mircea_popescu: davout i don't
think you
take my meaning.
the situation
that you imagine is, "hey, whatever, summertime and a bunch of us are at
the beach".
the situation in reality is, "a moroccan clan and some fat frenchies at
the beach". guess how likely you are
to a) find out
the price of dried fruit and b) find out
that you aren't finding out
the price of dried fruit.
davout: nubbins`: for
the
tx not
to relay at all it has
to be 'false' for everyone
davout: mircea_popescu: if everyone's actually
the same node, broadcasting
to one node is actually broadcasting
to everyone, and it follows
that it should have relayed properly. I guess it can also be
the sign of your connections all actually being
to
the same sybilling node
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform you know, and we for whatever reasons just see
the 1 in 100 gunshot.
nubbins`: davout all it
takes is a default setting of relayshitzerofeetransactions=FALSE
davout: thinking about it, I interpret
the fact
that A1 did not (on first attempt) get relayed
to my node as indicative of nodes *not* being merely facades for some sort of 'super-node'
nubbins`: the other one said something about "petulant and unwilling
to admit error in
the face of overwhelming evidence"
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform by
this logic
tho, are
there also 99 bitcoins we don't know about ? 99 linuxen ? 99 gccs
that statically link ?
assbot: Successfully updated
the rating for mircea_popescu from -1
to -1 with note: basic scammer, no accountability
mircea_popescu: but anyway, yes, if you believe 1 in 100,
they yes, you don't need cartel, just persistent miner.
nubbins`: shoulda been watching
the mempool size when you pushed out a 0-fee
assbot: Logged on 07-03-2016 23:07:12; mircea_popescu: but, generally speaking, sybil
testing on purported bitcoin nodes are a good idea, especially if carried out in secret and uncoordinatedly.
mircea_popescu: "pet miner". if pet miner has 1% of hash,
the observed phenomena occur 1% of cases.
mircea_popescu: specifically
the "sudden mining of an old 0fee
tx" ? how ?
mircea_popescu: specifically because it allows
them
the only possible moat against competition
mircea_popescu: and
there are VERY GOOD game
theoretic reasons for a miner cartel
to do
this.
mircea_popescu: i also said as much at
that exact
time, in
this very chan.
nubbins`: "one i'm unwillingto carry in
the full detail" lololol.
mircea_popescu: and
they put it in, at
the ~same second
they "broadcast" it
to
the hanger-on nodes.
mircea_popescu: it is an intricate discussion, and one i'm unwillingto carry in
the full detail, but on
the basis of what i have seen, it is my considered opinion
that at
the
time in discussion,
the miner cartel was running a ~half hour block delay
thing.
mircea_popescu: davout> asciilifeform: a
transaction being relayed does not imply it will be mined by anyone << especially a 0fee one.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform how does a
transaction
that shouldn't even be relayed GET relayed, and
then mined, in short order ?
mircea_popescu: but, generally speaking, sybil
testing on purported bitcoin nodes are a good idea, especially if carried out in secret and uncoordinatedly.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: it is unclear what
the help'd be at
the present
time, however. i see exactly no signs of any of
the observed behaviours discussed in
teh qntra piece anymore.
mircea_popescu: i'm willing, on general goodwill,
to help. i am certainly not willing
to underwrite an open ended personal support for some venture i happen
to manage.
davout: mircea_popescu: i like
to check stuff, maybe
there's stuff
to learn if i find out
they somehow were relayed
to my nodes at some point
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform no argument. in which it becomes entirely a bitbet's swamp, which bitbet has
to drain.
nubbins`: the most plausible scenario i can
think of is
that, like dooglus concurred, a shit-fee
tx
took forever and
then got relayed
dooglus: davout: curious why you'd say "that's a weird distribution << when mining block N, I have my pick of all
the
transactions broadcast while block N-1 was
the newest block. some of
those will have decent fees.
transactions broadcast while block N-10 was
the newest block
that haven't already been mined are probably not very attractive
to mine now. so why is block N including so many
transactions created 10 blocks ago and so few created 1 block ag
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform
this is obviously always possible. except it'd be bitbet, raqther
than mp. i've been otherwise unmolested
throughout.
davout: now, i'm quite curious
to actually see A2...4 with my own eyes, and check
those
too
mircea_popescu: its sudden appearance was discussed in
these very logs - even for
that brief interval before it made it into a block.
davout: ftr i checked my own logs, and what
they say is
that my node heard about A1 around march 1st
nubbins`: so, no,
there's no Nm set of nodes.
mircea_popescu: a statement of fact is a statement of fact. it only becomes a proof if used in a reasoning. a fact and a proof are very different items : one's a realia,
the other ideal.
nubbins`: which by
that
time he'd been accused of
thieving 17 btc
nubbins`: i also flatly disbelieve
that mp sent A2, A..n
to completely different nodes, because it's extremely, extremely relevant and didn't come out until his original argument shit
the bed