426900+ entries in 0.316s
mircea_popescu: indicative of
the braindamage bad conventional notation bakes into
thought
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform specifically :
the sestertius was really "semis-tertius", or, half-third.
mircea_popescu: note
that when i stood up an ancient chain,
to assuage any conceivable doubts about blockchain contiguity from day one, i let people actually filter it in
through
the normal process, rather
than
torrent it.
shinohai: mircea_popescu: any suggestions on how
to solve
that problem?
mircea_popescu: shinohai
the problem with
that is in
the verficiation.
shinohai still wants
to
torrent blockchain f he can ever get a clean sync.
mircea_popescu: one of
the lulziest
things in nature is watching voiceovered shows in romanian. beats any conceivable mst3k or anything.
mircea_popescu: anyway.
the general philosophy of
teh interwebs was you know, fault
tolerance since day i. "just stand up more nodes" is how one could summarize
the internets.
mircea_popescu: anyway, leaving aside
the ever present possibility of extremely obscure bug resulting from our changes, it'd be a backbone issue.
mircea_popescu: i really don't have a strong opinion on it, but i am pretty certain it's not
them making you unreachable.
mircea_popescu: re above
thread. and re nat
thread,
traditionally it's been regarded as "good for bitcoin"
to allow consumer folk connect ot
the network.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i'd prefer
this in
the form of "running X bit of b-a infrastructure". otherwise...
mircea_popescu: i'd like
to know who people
that discuss what i would like or wouldn't like are. so lemme know.
assbot: Logged on 06-08-2015 04:46:59; decimation: asciilifeform: oh,
thinking about
the 'mapTransactions' problem, I
think
the only real solution is a finite buffer with some kind of fifo
mircea_popescu:
http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=06-08-2015#1227427 << strangely,
that article doesn't read "russia is acting like a mature adult and is ignoring our idiot child
tantrums re "embargo". instead,
they graciously allow us
to use infrastructure we can't afford, for being poor,
the consequence of having been stuck in idiot child mode for decades now"
☝︎ gribble: Bitfinex BTCUSD
ticker | Best bid: 279.43, Best ask: 279.44, Bid-ask spread: 0.01000, Last
trade: 279.44, 24 hour volume: 10200.05712033, 24 hour low: 278.64, 24 hour high: 284.11, 24 hour vwap: None
assbot: Logged on 05-08-2015 22:39:05; ascii_field: 'Welcome
to regulated America, where once fabulous consumer inventions like refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, and dishwashers have been reduced
to a barely functioning state.
The reasons are always
the same: 1) phosphorous-free detergent, 2) a fetish with saving water, 3) weaker motors
that use less electricity, 4) more
tepid water due
to low default settings on hot water heaters, and 5) reduce
BingoBoingo: Entire English language RPG genre
though, based on a shit Aussie flick
decimation waiting for
the "ITC"
to issue a "general warrant" for bitcoin packets crossing us border
decimation: I suppose
this aspect of bitcoin
too seems
to be inevitably centralized/carteled
decimation: true, and it has
to be balanced against
the size of
the 'fee haul'
decimation: someone else
takes it and runs on a network with less latency
than yours
decimation: asciilifeform: say you have
the 'fee maximizing' software written
decimation: it's not gonna be 'free'
to build good node caching network, gotta pay $$$ for access
to mining 'input hole'
assbot: Logged on 19-07-2015 20:13:10; decimation: yes, but you would agree
that building such a network with an eye
toward minimizingn latency everywhere would be expensive
decimation: not unless
they can also sell mining equipment, not
decimation: asciilifeform: maybe
they use stolen bunker oil in nigera
to power jungle mining farm
decimation: asciilifeform: well,
they might not 'spv' if
they had a node network from which
they could draw juicy fees
decimation: as opposed
to
the users
to pay
the nodes for services of questionable value (if it
transmits, why care?)
decimation: asciilifeform: it does seem
the most 'rational' for
the miners
to pay for access
to
the best nodes
assbot: Logged on 19-07-2015 20:14:16; jurov: it's not hard for every node
to advertise addy for caching fees
punkman: I don't see many scenarios where miner can't find nice
transactions on his own
decimation: yes but I mean
the fees would be collected directly by
the node-owner, not paid via miner
decimation: asciilifeform: it is now. earlier when I brought
this up he (and jurov) said
that it should be decided out-of-band with node owners