334300+ entries in 2.388s
mircea_popescu: good future investment, people can just be given
a link
mircea_popescu: but i imagine
a correct solution would be something like, make further endowments dependent on beatings documentation.
mircea_popescu: i happen to think this conversation is
a great argument for educational brutality.
Diablo-D3: they make about 5% annually on the trade difference due to the debt, or about $1.1 trillion
a year.
Diablo-D3: I would rather go for
a debt swap however. they owe us slightly more than we owe them.
Diablo-D3: now, normally I would say our investment in their country was
a good one, except the federal reserve did it without foreknowledge of congress or the treasury or the president.
Diablo-D3: now, if they were to pay what they owe, yes, you would have
a legitimate argument
Diablo-D3: (thats
a little over $8k per capita, btw)
mircea_popescu: they made pretty decent music, which would count as an item for this conversation, except it wasn't valued at the time. arguably that gives them
a leg to stand on
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: but I don't have
a wife!
mircea_popescu: copumpkin did you just take
a system, posit that it's wrong and thus proved it being wrong ?
copumpkin: if we pay
a bunch of poor laotians to make our sweaters, and all our sweaters are made in laos, that doesn't mean laos is taking over
copumpkin: it just doesn't seem like
a particularly meaningful metric to measure by
mircea_popescu: make
a rule that all kids scoring in the last quartile of their class take ten across the buttocks
mircea_popescu: i cut down btc, i wear high heels, suspenders aaand
a braa
gribble: You rated user gmaxwell on Sun Apr 8 09:54:19 2012, giving him
a rating of -10, and supplied these additional notes: hypocritical idiot..
knotwork: too much being, once in
a few years
smickles: "Trilema happens to be the first blog in the world that switched to
a paid model, imitated about
a year later by The New York Times."
knotwork: some lawyer pursuing the person on behalf of
a bunch of layr-client-priviledged PGP keys
knotwork: nah it'd have to be
a PGP-class action suit :)
knotwork: take it as
a hint that you read too much :)
knotwork: and that same private key can also sign
a digital statement to the effect that it wants them back and why
BTC-Mining: And if that person was always dealing from TOR, never tied the bitcoins to
a transaction toward one of his bank account and denies owning the address, you can't provide
a proof.
knotwork: and I do not have to prove I sent them, the blockchain proves
a certain private key ordered them sent
knotwork: sending them to someone who then fails to do right by me in regard to them is
a bit more complicated
knotwork: re "They", maybe "they" would say of course your offshore corp in
a place that doesnt reveal corp owners is not anonymous and we will not hide its identity
BTC-Mining: Mircea, they'd all say: "We're sorry, but the criterions for your case does not make you not eligible to be
a client of ours."
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining i tell you, the shit we get involved in here would put to shame
a full fledged commercial paper litigation house
knotwork: so if I owned giga passsthrough shares I would of course suffer the consequences of having used
a known identity
mircea_popescu: and in general it'd be
a premier way to cause
a mess. i'll pass
smickles: and why should giga trust that mircea_popescu only issued
a proportional amount of the etf shares?
mircea_popescu: knotwork there's plenty of problems. for once the scale is 1:1000, for another it wasn't
a direct holding, and i see no good reason to pressure giga this way (which would be really abusive tbh)
knotwork: only the information about
a bunch of anonymous sock puppets / PGP identities would be released
knotwork: was the scale such that some owners might have owned thereby
a fractional number of actual gigavps?
knotwork: some idiot service recently refused to let me use that identity because I sent them the email from
a real email address that can actually accept email
mircea_popescu: knotwork nah gpg string is just submited as
a post to an url.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining back
a year or so ago mpoe traded by email. i think knotwork isn't up to date with the new trade paradigm
knotwork: but unlike GLBSE he need not do weird codes shit, since he told everyone up front that if they want to be anonymous they should create
a PGP identity no one knows is them. didnt he? or am I confused having just read bunch of how to Torify email sites?
mircea_popescu: knotwork "anyone could have made up any ficitional but syntactically possible email address to make up
a PGP identity for" << this part is correct
knotwork: later I say one could paste into
a web form but was that the only way? was there never
a send orders by email?
knotwork: I thought I registered there by sending
a PGP-crypted email?
knotwork: I think MPEx did let me do that, and if so, then anyone could have made up any ficitional but syntactically possible email address to make up
a PGP identity for
BTC-Mining: It seems that if appropriate and feasible, and someone makes
a claim with
a signed statement Mircea finds out to be receivable, he will honor the claim.
BTC-Mining: Hmm, I somehow managed to end up reading
a thread about some Intersango drama dating september 2011
knotwork: but, you did use the term ETF rather than pass-through, even though you also commented maybe casually rather than stated officially/technically that it was kind of sort of maybe at least much akin to
a passthrough
knotwork: seems maybe similar/related to the "
a beneficiary was intended" stuff in contracts, mentioned in some pirate threads
knotwork: the "discarded as worthless" part is what? more
a colloquialism? or
a technical term meaning something specific?
knotwork:
a technical loophole - we dis-carded as in its not writ on stone nor cardboard anymore, more of
a mere paper trail ow
knotwork: Not asleep, just taking
a long time to backtrack to figure out if the whole dramafest-recap-and-rerun was ultimately just something thinking "discard as worthless" implied or intended "deletion of records"
knotwork: * mircea_popescu wonders if everyone else is alseep/sexting/busy not giving
a shit or quite the contrary, in awed silence at the sheer genius of the debate unraveling before their very eyes.
BTC-Mining: The point being, there's
a difference between made up scenarios you have in your head and "facts" involving direct claims/witnesses.
BTC-Mining: Note that my previous statement states that I "recall" seeing such
a post, not that it actually happened.
BTC-Mining: While the log for the meeting is not disputed by multiple people being witness of said conversation, which gives
a certain credibility and Nefario said what he said in thos logs.
BTC-Mining: While what I claim Nefario claimed has
a public log not contested by GLBSE shareholders of their meeting.
BTC-Mining: Like theymos passing as
a fact Nefario was using user's funds solely because "He thought so"
BTC-Mining: My complain is people passing as fact something they have no credible claim to pass it as
a fact.
BTC-Mining: I came for answers and although your statements were
a bit cryptic at first, I ended up with my answers.
BTC-Mining: Misstating fact would be me going right away without further discussion or confirmation on bitcointalk loudmouthing how it is
a fact you'll delete all signed transactions for the GIGA.ETF rendering taking backups useless.
mircea_popescu: <strong>mircea_popescu</strong> you know this as
a fact ?
BTC-Mining: As such, I might have been wrong. But I never presented it as
a fact. Although technically we're on
a public medium in this channel, this was
a conversation between you and me.
BTC-Mining: be erased), that data would be kept along signed statement (as in all your data too, it was
a bit of confusion in my understanding), and then the part with smickles where it went unanswered if you'd honor signed statements (not very useful if you don't keep your part of the signed data).
BTC-Mining: Nefario claimed not to be using user's funds. Theymos, thinking "wait, Nefario certainly does not have the money to pay for it, he probably used the users's funds". And went ahead making an official statement that Nefario used. Now that's assumption put forward as facts. You stated the data for the ETF would be deleted (
A general statement which seems to indicate any data related would
BTC-Mining: [21:08] <mircea_popescu> mpex isn't designed to be
a sort of glbse
smickles: 04:01 < mircea_popescu> you were talking about "data being deleted".
a customer wanting to push
a claim would be in no worse position today, on the 5th of december 2012 or 2015
BTC-Mining: So you need to keep all transactions data for that, as proof we signed them at
a later date.
mircea_popescu: either person has or has not
a stat to back their complaint. if they do not, complaint is invalid.
BTC-Mining: So you would, theorically, need
a database backup to be used in
a claim. Signed "STAT" statements are not receivable.
smickles: I know for
a fackt that mircea_popescu has
a cron job of rm -rf /home/user/mpex/db.sql
mircea_popescu: one'd not give
a shit about the former, and even keep most of them off the active db cause mpex doesn't need to review trade #5 at any point in november 2012
mircea_popescu: conceivably, one'd care to keep these later trimmed seeing how they're pounded possibly 1000s of times
a second
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining think for
a moment, logically. in any possible implementation there'd be some dbs which hold records of what has happened. such as, who transfered what to whom, in sale or otherwise.
mod6: that was
a looooong way to get
a short distance
smickles: it's still
a good idea to copy the db dump on dec 1
BTC-Mining: Suppose your ETF has 1000 units. Someone has 900 shares and
a signed statement from November the 29th. Someone has 100 units and 10 accounts, and 10 statement from the 30th of november for 100 units, one for each of those accounts.
BTC-Mining: I think I asked something like, would you honor
a signed statement? Which you answered as "No"
BTC-Mining: Ok, so all signed statement has
a CERTAIN claim value, but you won't pronounce yourself on that value until you know the facts regarding the future situation for such claims.
mircea_popescu: no, cause it's
a future question and i don't know the contingencies.
BTC-Mining: I'm really confused... can't you just say if you'll honor or not
a valid claim to any shares?
smickles: i took that to mean
a stat made after dec 1
smickles: BTC-Mining: i bet, that presenting
a stat after info is released would get your benefit back
BTC-Mining: It WOULD be good if you didn't keep any profit from that decision from GIGAMINING shares and donated it to
a charitable cause.
mircea_popescu: you were talking about "data being deleted".
a customer wanting to push
a claim would be in no worse position today, on the 5th of december 2012 or 2015
smickles: < mircea_popescu> since for instance i announced the exact time, what's to keep customers from just saving
a stat ?
smickles: BTC-Mining: i've lost too high
a % of my net worth by extending people courtesies to continue the practice
mircea_popescu: since for instance i announced the exact time, what's to keep customers from just saving
a stat ?
BTC-Mining: What that 1 month tells me is because Nefario completly fucked up, although you know about it and although you know he further screwed on the 16th and you know he's never been quite good at PR, because it could be done in 5 minutes by you (which you know won't happen) or that he might never disclose it (again,
a possibility, not an absolute), you can't be assed to extend the courtesy