42600+ entries in 1.052s

mircea_popescu: "
t, that all expenses charged against BitBet will exclusively reflect expenditure in good faith resulting from the operation of its business"
mircea_popescu: i had no idea he even wants or wanted the liability - but my guess is no, he didn'
t.
mircea_popescu: jurov contract demands unanimous agreement on dispositions of bitbet. if it's sold, say. it doesn'
t demand, nor has in practice been ever the case that its sought in all matters.
nubbins`: because it's obviously not sane but she can'
t just SAY SO
nubbins`: jurov notice how hanbot didn'
t answer your question
nubbins`: danielpbarron also, as a lord, your clicks don'
t put me towards the off position at all
nubbins`: i thought it was mp who doesn'
t like bitcoin
mircea_popescu: no idea why he imagines that'll carry, but whatever. it ain'
t gonna. he doesn'
t like bitcoin - he can either fix it or stick to cad.
danielpbarron: nubbins`, i'm trying to give you an out to the negative rating i fear i will eventually have to give you, and I don'
t mean that as a threat, just that at a certain point what you are doing is spamming, and i like to read this log every day and have the power to at least turn the nozzle two clicks towards the off position
punkman: imho, bitbet can decide to spend its future profits on whatever they want, advertising, servers, or 100% bonuses to random bettors. it doesn'
t make me want to buy more bitbet shares of course.
cazalla: he won'
t cash your stock warrant as he has you on ignore? it's clear such a request can be relayed to him if required
nubbins`: hanbot weren'
t you told to shut up?
pete_dushenski can'
t help but wonder if nubbins` has s.mpoe or s.bbet shorts. and if he didn'
t before, is now looking . if he just wants to "fleece some money out of [mp]", why not eh ?
danielpbarron: nubbins`, we get it already. I don'
t think spamming and circumventing other people's ignore help your case..
cazalla: fwiw, and isn'
t worth much, i think nubbins` has legit cause for complaint, shame to see the fangs and then venom flow though
cazalla: don'
t recall that one in anycase
mircea_popescu: re prev point : so yeah, most strong nodes will have multiple interfaces they look at. so most people (who know, as opposed of feeling like they know) aren'
t necessariyl surprised by ~some degree~ of sybiling.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform even so, i don'
t think banning sybil reduces to "unable to talk to white devils".
davout: nubbins`: absence of proof isn'
t proof of absence yo
nubbins`: hey, at least you didn'
t commit fraud
mircea_popescu: davout i don'
t mean it as an attack or anything. and the question of exploring the negative is open now and will remain open until spec.
davout: mircea_popescu: well, it also "doesn'
t not work" in the sense that I sometimes have got transactions stuck because I'm a cheap zero-fee jew, that I got unstuck by issuing a double-spend
mircea_popescu: this is very different from the negative, "it doesn'
t not work".
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.
☟︎ 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.
☟︎ 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.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform by this logic tho, are there also 99 bitcoins we don'
t know about ? 99 linuxen ? 99 gccs that statically link ?
mircea_popescu: but anyway, yes, if you believe 1 in 100, they yes, you don'
t need cartel, just persistent miner.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform how does a transaction that shouldn'
t even be relayed GET relayed, and then mined, in short order ?
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
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
davout: asciilifeform: i have nfi, but absence of proof isn'
t proof of absence
davout: asciilifeform: i don'
t see how one could conclusively assert that A1 has not been relayed by the node one originally broadcast it to
nubbins`: numbers aren'
t your strong suit, maybe stick to doing the dark andreas antonolololopous schtick, it's what you're good at
mircea_popescu: you just don'
t know enough about this sort of thing to find this out.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform is there anything more than random derp of tenuous association with b-a has a total meltdown when he realises that b-a is not fiat, the republic not a democracy and i don'
t give a shit about "people themselves" ?
mircea_popescu:
http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=07-03-2016#1425011 << they should have been. except if the "non overlapping" sets of miners DO in fact overlap, in the sense of being merely meaningless facades of the same one thing, in which case they wouldn'
t necessarily know that they can be trivially fingerprinted by the symptom of "hey, apparently they know about a txn they shouldn'
t know about".
☝︎ nubbins`: again, doesn'
t affect me, just saying. pretty cavalier.
nubbins`: asciilifeform i haven'
t read over s.nsa listing agreement in depth
pete_dushenski: i haven'
t the patience to compare every listed tx. perhaps someone else has script or program for this
dooglus: most people don'
t use prb - most transactions don'
t have a non-zero locktime - but lots do
nubbins`: danielpbarron this isn'
t expert finance, my buddy
danielpbarron: well i don'
t masquerade as a finance expert while making my shoes..
nubbins`: trinque take one on the chin, why don'
t ya
danielpbarron: as to whether the listing agreement was violated, I hope for the sake of myself and other shareholders that bbet isn'
t liquidated at the specified price of 0.00001 btc per share
danielpbarron: i'm not saying you haven'
t made some sound points nubbins` , but I trust Mircea more than I trust you, and that's that.
nubbins`: i don'
t think anyone's seriously floating that as a solution
nubbins`: didn'
t give a fuck, tried em anyway
nubbins`: hadn'
t taken a look at the rat's nest?
nubbins`: oh, so he didn'
t know it was broken before this?
nubbins`: which is why it's insane that he didn'
t shrug off the loss
nubbins`: i resent the implication that i haven'
t been
nubbins`: but i don'
t think this is necessarily alf's position
nubbins`: jurov i wouldn'
t either; i don'
t believe B was from another bet
jurov: but i wouldn'
t call it ponzi, at least till bitbet has equity
assbot: Logged on 07-03-2016 16:12:01; mircea_popescu: PeterL when the ceo of a company makes a stupid mistake, the company pays for it. there are exactly no exceptions to this rule, nor will there ever be. morever, even when what the ceo does isn'
t a stupid mistake, the shareholders still pay for it.
nubbins`: rubes wouldn'
t normally wager 7 btc to earn 0.4, but if you hold the keys, it's less of a gamble
nubbins`: kakobrekla is gonna be pissed when he realizes that under mp's proposed terms, kako doesn'
t see a dime of dividend payouts until mp is made whole again
nubbins`: i can'
t see bitbet staying around as a going concern if mp doesn'
t eat crow
nubbins`: just as long as we're all on the same page here that the 17 btc is fraudulent and mp is refusing to admit his fraud, i don'
t really have anything else to add, aside from shredding the ridiculous rebuttals put forth so far
nubbins`: yours didn'
t have a $7,000 private spending spree on the books
nubbins`: and if that statement doesn'
t cover march AND february, then s.bbet has failed reporting requirements as per mpex regs
nubbins`: you can'
t leave it open-ended, that's just not gonna fly
nubbins`: i can'
t tell if you're advocating letting the fraud stand as the only sensible option
nubbins`: you're the one saying he can'
t just say oops
nubbins`: he can'
t simply admit his unquestioned fraud?
nubbins`: don'
t conflate strong feelings with rage, i'm having a great day :)
nubbins`: didn'
t even have to pay bingo to stick around, just bought him a domain and some text-only
trinque: I don'
t get these shots at mod6; he wrote up a fine guide to building a gentoo...
nubbins`: or mod6, by all accounts a great guy, head of TRB, almost quit in the first week because he couldn'
t get a gentoo install up and running.
nubbins`: they don'
t bicker much, and alf's a smart guy
nubbins`: PeterL i don'
t know how much of the logs you've read, but it's mostly derps
nubbins`: TMSR~ can'
t afford to harbour scammers or fraudsters
nubbins`: i guess we should put his lordship to a vote in a few days if he hasn'
t resolved things satisfactorily
nubbins`: "i have to push my own tx because bitbet can'
t afford a tx fee"
nubbins`: so, where do we go from here? we have an mpex listing where the owner's introduced fraudulent expenses and the other owner won'
t sign the financial statement. the only party who has recourse of any sort is mpex, but of course the conflict of interest involved will preclude mpex from resolving the situation to honest satisfaction