327100+ entries in 0.205s
PeterL: what does it mean by b? what does
this entail?
mircea_popescu: i am not in
the slightest proposing
this. i am saying however
that
the
toilet may be part of
the solution, but can't be
THE solution.
PeterL: so
the lesson here is "don't send 0 fee
txen if you are not patient enough
to wait a few weeks"
mircea_popescu: so... no. you can't solve
the problem of fiat
through
technological means, be
they bitcoin or anything else.
the same people
that abandoned
the fiat
to "mysterious entity" will just as readily abandon bitcoin, and
their own asshole.
PeterL: t1 is after
t2 makes sense since
tx1 had 0 fee, while
tx2 had a fee and was
therefore included faster
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i've been
thinking about it, but i don't
think
this is actually resolvable. as it happens -
the "magically working network - we don't know how it works"
thing is much more appealing
to
the average joe
than you know, "this is my node. i will defend it with my life". what life, are you kidding, got sitcoms
to watch and shit.
☟︎ PeterL: no,
tx2 is not
tx 1 because
they have different inputs
mircea_popescu: did you get
the part where
tx2 is really
tx1 and was sent 8 days prior
to what you insanely call
tx1 ?
PeterL: tx1 was sent, included in a block at
t1,
tx2 was sent, included in a block at
t2,
the fact
t1 and
t2 are close
together is just a coincidence, not a problem
mircea_popescu: PeterL looky, i'm not going
to carry on
this conversation. i get it, you wish
to be dense and stonewall. fine, but stop derping at me about it.
PeterL: but what is
the problem? seems
the networked worked as advertised?
mircea_popescu: so
that
the problem can be fully exposed, in detailed, solid fact, so as
to be handwaved by people.
mircea_popescu: or at any rate something-like-it. of
the vast array of various nonsense readily available in ample stores on
this networked currency of
the future.
kakobrekla: why go
then sign another
tx with fresh inputs
to seal
the deal ??
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla yes, by
the
time
the 4th
txn
trying
to pay out bitbet vanished without a
trace, i was sort-of expecting it.
☟︎☟︎ PeterL: I don't see a problem, you signed
two
transactions and
they both were mined, where is
the problem?
mircea_popescu: whether i am surprised or not is not included in
this discussion. i don't recall saying i was surprised, nor does over-the-lan
telepathy historically work. moreover, my own state is deeply irrelevant :
the problem is
there, and it's grinning at you.
kakobrekla: actually,
to put it in another way, im surprised you are surprised over
the events
that happened given your set actions.
kakobrekla: its like gpg signing "i give you half of pile x"
the reciever says "didnt get
the message at all" and
then you go ok nvm "i give you half of pile y" now.
kakobrekla: or should i say inputs. i always get confused with
the
two.
kakobrekla: becase i assume you know once you put out a signed statement of spending some outputs
those can actually be spent at a later
time if
they are still
there.
mircea_popescu: you
think i'd rather have 18 btc
than know all
this ? i wouldn't.
kakobrekla: anyway paying out
the bet with a different set of inputs after you have made a broadcast of
the signed
tx from
the first inputs even
to a single node, without moving
those inputs elsewhere first, is a noobish mistake. why you were unable
to do
that is a different matter.
mircea_popescu: i distinctly recal
trb nearly sunk in
the other incident, while mpb provided
the magic constants. why was
that ?
mircea_popescu: the reward's halving,
they regard
their capital investment as ~worthless, and we have crossed bitcoin event horizon.
mircea_popescu: other
than
the obvious "they're getting sloppy"
there is, of course,
the alternative explanation
that
the current crop of miners roughly speaking stopped giving a shit.
mircea_popescu: one of
the many protocol items
that
turned
to be promises was - i shouldn't NEED any defense.
mircea_popescu: if only. protocols would be so much easier
to both design and implement, if
this were
true.
mircea_popescu: which aren't, at
the present
time,
trb-tethered. it's a goal, but into
the future.
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla> one
thing
that goes
through my mind is
that
trb/mps <<
this is
true, but let me clarify
that An set of
txn were broadcast
through a set of > 1k distinct peers. most of which i don't regard as peers in any sense, but nevertheless
they did get
to hear about
them from my own nodes.
kakobrekla: BingoBoingo feel free
to remove
the one
that is br0ken and does not validate as far as im concerned.
kakobrekla: the 40% uptime nodes bring your
tx
to
the miners, news at 11 or when are
those.
mircea_popescu: these "most nodes" don't even fucking figure in
the node count.
kakobrekla: most nodes are idiots
that run prb as built by core
team
kakobrekla: one
thing
that goes
through my mind is
that
trb/mps infrastructure is on
the border of 'consensus' behavior of most nodes.
this makes it more susceptible
to odd/unwanted shit happening.
BingoBoingo: <kakobrekla> BingoBoingo one should be removed and one approved, hopefully you noticed
that << But you submitted
two!
BingoBoingo: <mircea_popescu> historically i
thought
this is just random variance between divergent implementations, but now i
think it's a single unit behaviour modulated somehow << Could be
turdacious relay network or it's replacement's evil
mircea_popescu: which at
the
time i did buy as a sufficient explanation.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform
the first set was ~arguably~ due
to
the malleator magically failing on select
txn
mircea_popescu: i suppose you know, gut feeling. can go either way. which is why i said, doesn't have
to accept anything.
mircea_popescu: well, incredibly enough, nobody has actually calculated
the fucking odds,
to support
this view.
kakobrekla: spiracy are also less
than randomness.
kakobrekla: the odds of
that are less
than
the odds of what we observed. and i
think
the odds of ko
mircea_popescu: nothing is randomly impossible. i have no argument
there.
kakobrekla: i dont see
the events
that
took place as randomly impossible
mircea_popescu: the problem is
that "weird shit" just coallesced into everyone's worst nightmare.
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla> arguably i have more actual experience with sending
txes
than alf. << well,
that was a discussion of mempools i
thought, so i'm not sure
this reduction is relevant.
kakobrekla: BingoBoingo one should be removed and one approved, hopefully you noticed
that
mircea_popescu: more generally, you can't bring arguments as
to what
the standard is on
the basis of "look what
this implementation does".
the illustrative case of
this being
the four men in a dark room with an elephant.
BingoBoingo: <kakobrekla> who here has control over approving
the comments ? Approved nao
punkman: asciilifeform: did you manage
to bet 5btc
twice when your
tx got stuck?
kakobrekla: arguably i have more actual experience with sending
txes
than alf.
punkman: has anyone else observed cases of
tx being in mempool but not advertised
to peers?
mircea_popescu: what, you
think asciilifeform accepted it as stated because he's afraid of me or something ?
kakobrekla: or "
this isn't how
this sort of discussion works, by giving counterexample."