324500+ entries in 0.193s
nubbins`: Should BitBet fail
to execute
this Agreement, as for instance by but not limited
to breaching 3.2.h above, MPEx will notify
the named individuals of
their breach and may, at its sole discretion, suspend
the asset from
trading
thus activating
the liquidation of
the asset.
adlai is fairly certain bitbet has been "mixing bets" for ~ever. isn't
this how
the whole "bitbet as
tumbler" story was supposed
to work? ie,
the blockchain
tells a different story
than
the addresses listed on
the site
PeterL: nubbins` payout from inputs is good for
transparency, but it would be perfectly legitimate for bitbet
to send all funds
to one address and
then make all payouts from
the same address
assbot: The greatly anticipated BitBet (S.BBET) February 2016 Statement on
Trilema - A blog by Mircea Popescu. ... (
http://bit.ly/1LamWrs )
nubbins`: adlai yes,
the refusal
to admit
the mistake is what's constituting
the fraud.
adlai: nubbins`: it does change
the picture from "fraud! abdication! blood of
tyrants!"
to "mp made a mistake when acting as coin-handler for a corporation"
nubbins`: it shares many letters with
the word pizza
nubbins`: and
there's a name for an operation
that pays cashouts from more recent
takings
nubbins`: adlai i don't
think
that mixing bets like salad paints a prettier picture.
nubbins`: even if it'd worked, he still would have been introducing a private expense
to bitbet's books and
then paying himself back from A* inputs, which still breaks
the listing agreement
assbot: Logged on 07-03-2016 16:50:24; adlai: nubbins`: couldn't
the inputs of B have been from other bets? maybe not how "bettors have come
to expect" payouts would work, but not strictly speaking funds which don't belong
to s.bbet
PeterL: but in any case not send
txn B until
txn A has been resolved
nubbins`: don't make me dig up examples of bets
that
took a week
to resolve
nubbins`: if he'd gone straight from A1
to A4 we'd probably all be drinking soda
together now
PeterL: or double spend
the outputs (and get a miner
to include) before sending
txn B
nubbins`: while
the backlog is still huge.
nubbins`: or send another
turbo low fee
transaction 12 hours later.
PeterL: well, either wait for
the first
transactio
adlai: nubbins`: couldn't
the inputs of B have been from other bets? maybe not how "bettors have come
to expect" payouts would work, but not strictly speaking funds which don't belong
to s.bbet
☟︎ nubbins`: asciilifeform if i send $7,000 cash in
the mail, i don't let
the post office choose
the delivery standard
PeterL: asciilifeform but sending
the second
txn was pure idiocy, since he had no way of knowing
the first would not also be mined
nubbins`: the hilarity
that's ensued
today is me proving
this
to
the point of ridiculousness
nubbins`: PeterL i don't
think you understand how
this place works
PeterL: but how is mircea_popescu going
to address
the concerns if he ignores
the people who raise
them?
nubbins`: PeterL i
think it's fairly obvious
that customer payouts are zero priority, given
the 0-fee payout attempt followed by a payout embargo
dooglus: I suspect
that's
the client's fault - used
to be
that high-priority inputs meant you didn't need a fee
nubbins`: all
these maybes, and more,
to be left unaddressed -- stay
tuned!
PeterL: maybe just never send 0fee
txn, because customer payouts should be a priority?
nubbins`: maybe bitbet shouldn't be sending 0-fee
transactions when
there's a massive mempool backlog!
nubbins`: hey, i bet and have a node
too
PeterL: <mircea_popescu> by
this measure,
there's a large overlap between all sorts of
things. maybe
there is, sure. << it only
takes one, and I bet and have a node,
therefore it might have been me
too
nubbins`: dooglus in
the absence of proof, i'd assume
that
they were sent
to
the same nodes
dooglus: if A1 and A2 went
to non-overlapping sets of nodes
then A2 should have been accepted and mined, right?
☟︎ nubbins`: hope
there's nothing wrong with
the financials
nubbins`: still no response
to allegations!
mircea_popescu: by
this measure,
there's a large overlap between all sorts of
things. maybe
there is, sure.
PeterL: well,
there is probably a large overlap between bettors and people running nodes, since
these are people who have an interest in
the bitcoin network working so
they can get paid
nubbins`: "to a non-overlapping set of nodes" -- aha! he's found an out
that he hasn't used yet --
the nodes weren't overlapping now, see?!
nubbins`: except for B, where one of
the outputs went back
to you because it was your money, not bitbet's
mircea_popescu: let's move on
to
the next step.
THEN, MP broadcast A2, which HAD a fee.
to a non-overlapping set of nodes.
the disjunction of
the
two sets had a perfectly valid
txn
they... also didn't broadcast, because magic reasons.
nubbins`: PeterL one person watching one of
the 23 outputs, yes
PeterL: so
there are what, 23 outputs or so? and it would
take just one of
them seeing
the
txn
to hold onto it
nubbins`: surely he couldn't just add
the pubkey.
mircea_popescu: well... if it's not a bettor
then "for
them A1 credits one of
their addresses and so it sticks around forever for
them" doesn't stick anymore.
dooglus: "bettor" could be replaced by "anyone who wants
to fuck MP over" I guess if you want
to increase
the probability somewhat
nubbins`: yes,
that's right, payouts are on indefinite hiatus because paying 9 cents
tx fee isn't a solution
nubbins`: ^ just
to put everyone at ease even
though payouts are on indefinite hiatus, here's a 10 btc house bet
gribble: remove bettor from
the statement, it's falsely constricting
nubbins`: ;;echo remove bettor from
the statement, it's falsely constricting
mircea_popescu: as it isn't, per your
theory,
the case
that "Whole world saw". just
the set in question.
mircea_popescu: so far, we're with
the assumption
that "bettor with incentive was running one or more of
the nodes mp connected
to".
nubbins`: dooglus i've been saying
this since
the first minute, but he just won't listen
nubbins`: PeterL
that's sort of
the way it is
dooglus: they won't
tell you
they saw it - it was 0 fee, so won't be relayed
to anyone
PeterL: mircea_popescu you seem
to be making some big assumptions and plugging your ears whenever anybody questions
them
dooglus: everyone you sent it
to saw it. Didn't you broadcast it
to ~100 nodes?
nubbins`: ^ you have no way of proving
that
PeterL: A1 you sent out
to
the world, everybody listening saw it
dooglus: the winners wouldn't have seen A1 vanish after 48h or whatever
the mempool lifetime is; for
them A1 credits one of
their addresses and so it sticks around forever for
them
nubbins`: you're assuming
the bitbet broadcast node is covert.
nubbins`: dooglus logic has no place in
this discussion
dooglus: maybe
that node was connected when you broadcast
the first
time,
turned off, and reconnected 8 days later << or maybe one of
the winners of
the bet saw he had been paid and rebroadcast A1 so he could get paid again;
that seems like
the most obvious motivation for rebroadcasting A1
gribble: no, it
tells everyone what you
think you saw, and as we've seen
today, what you
think you saw couldn't fill a hat.
nubbins`: ;;echo no, it
tells everyone what you
think you saw, and as we've seen
today, what you
think you saw couldn't fill a hat.
PeterL: withholding
txn, sitting on
txn, not
the same
thing
nubbins`: oh, wait,
that lines up with
the fucking facts
mircea_popescu: also
trivially meets
the definition of "withholding
txn", but w/e.
nubbins`: PeterL imagine how high
the priority would be on A1 by
the
time it makes it
to
the front of
the mempool queue
mircea_popescu: but, sure, "experience of
that fraction of bitbet
that does payouts", is right.
PeterL: and maybe
that node was connected when you broadcast
the first
time,
turned off, and reconnected 8 days later, at which point it rebroadcast
the
txn?
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla it does not
tell everyone what "i
think", it
tells everyone what i saw.
assbot: Logged on 07-03-2016 16:24:11; mircea_popescu: but in any case,
there is a substantial difference between "i
think X on
the basis of my personal experience" and "mp said x on
the basis of bitbet experience as documented on qntra". exactly of
the sort and caliber as
the difference between "i
think
there exist alien" and "here's pictures of man walking on
the moon", in fact.
PeterL: it would only
take one node holding onto
the
txn for it
to be rebroadcast
nubbins`: oh, wait,
that's fucking retarded
nubbins`: that way he can
tell what
transactions other nodes are aware of but are not rebroadcasting
nubbins`: he sends a special packet and
the node dumps its mempool, json format
mircea_popescu: i looked into whatever i looked sufficient
to satisfy myself.
PeterL: did you go look into
the mempool of every node?
nubbins`: and you wonder why i have zero interest in "doing up a blog post" or whatever masturbatory navel-gazing bullshit is somehow better
than explaining it real-time