log☇︎
44700+ entries in 0.324s
ben_vulpes: moreover i want to bring up another overlooked point which is that it is illegal to press a tree with these two patches side by side
mircea_popescu: anyway, and the proposed fix for this is to actually add a hash for the whole filebase in each patch ?
a111: Logged on 2017-12-25 22:56 ben_vulpes: the specifics of this case is that increase_aggression_levels touches *only* net.cpp and excise_hash_truncations touches a whole lotta stuff but *not* net.cpp
mircea_popescu: the ~only way to establish a lineage among these two so a3` is properly a4 is if the patch is spuriously modified to add a "hey v sucks" comment in Fj
ben_vulpes: that only took a day
mircea_popescu: it doesn't matter which files they touch. a4 will build upon one of them, and then a5 on a4, and the unbuild upon one is left as a "fray" on the rope.
ben_vulpes: a3 and a3' can touch a disjoint set of files and never be depended upon by an a4 without mutating unrelated files to ensure dependency is properly codified.
mircea_popescu: there's still a disconnect because i don't understand what the hell you mean.
mircea_popescu: (this results in an immediate reimplementation of eg's linus torvald's linux codebase management, except properly and per protocol rather than ad-hoc and in a manner nobody can explain or meaningfully defend)
mircea_popescu: if the patch tree goes a1->a2->a3/a3` your position is now to choose which of a3 or a3` counts, and which doesn't count. the discarded one may be scavenged for useful content, but it will never be a proper patch.
a111: Logged on 2017-12-26 18:26 mircea_popescu: so as the reconciler, you get to pick which of ~either~ a ~or~ b to count in your considered oppinion as the republican and which as the heretic.
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 01:52 trinque: only way to make a 3rd improvement rely on two distinct improvements in past is to put cruft in both.
mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-27#1758965 << this is exactly what's discussed in http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-26#1758702 : only way to recover code in a heretic patch (ie, one you're not pressing upon) is to literally lift it and include it. ☝︎☝︎
trinque: that is what I mean by a merge, and has the same result.
mircea_popescu: trinque there's an ambiguity here i'm possibly responsible for though not intended : to "regrind", ie to take a pile of patches and make them into one single patch ; as opposed to re-genesis, which is what happened with eg mpi.
mircea_popescu: somehow the voice model makes spam such a rarity in #trilema, people actually have the mental vigour to evaluate it!
mircea_popescu: so on. because "it's spam" and that means "it shouldn't be read" and they actually have a consensus on this, which they idiotically but universally misrepresent as somehow different from any other cultish behaviour, such as believing "racism" or "global warming" or "witchcraft" are things.
mircea_popescu: and in unrelated lets-suck-our-own-cocks-we-utterly-deserve-it : consider that the whole l0de thing started because someone from here checked out a SPAMMED item. the fuctard/pantsuit "engineers" in name only in EVERY OTHER fucking channel ~think~ themselves all open-minded and intelligent and whatever, yet i can make a very obviously correct and banal prediction - they wouldn't have followed it, nor in any case escalated and
mircea_popescu: trinque which is a valid thing to do, but NOT if one wishes to at the same timeeschew regrinding/genesising
trinque: as I cannot put a definition to merge that is not "destroyed vertex on this graph, because it was by my lights wrong, and created a new one"
mircea_popescu: is there a different reason ?
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 03:43 mircea_popescu: let me put it this way, maybe resolves problem : v unpermits a specific kind of hack within the purview of this discussion, wherein one tries to design after the fact. correctly designed items will have the larger bits (by footprint) earlier in the patch tree ; and fray out correctly. github-style nonsensica commonly attempts to discover that "hey, this johnny come lately item should have been an evie-comes-early MODULE, let'
mircea_popescu: whereas K would be wrong to attempt same, and instead should regrind a whole new genesis, call it D, even if it is made up of the reunion of the As and Bs he uses.
mircea_popescu: now, the v doctrine as it stands right now, both on logs and actual precedent, at least as far as i understand it (but this is vacuous both as a representation and as a history, as most important questions haven't yet been seriously tested) -- is that Z is right to simply sign a patch on B-genesis ;
mircea_popescu: at this moment, if lord K observes that he could use the tree of X up to A2 and the tree of Y up to A3 ~together~ he could install D4 on this pile and similarily to Z produce a different still useful item.
mircea_popescu: then along comes lord Z, and this lord Z observes that if he used B3 and instead of B4 installed C4 on the same top, he'd get a wholly different but entirely useful to him item. so he makes this.
mircea_popescu: so suppose lord X makes tree A : A1->A2->A3->A4 are patches, delivering some kind of utility we don't care to specify.
mircea_popescu: let's make a working model here.
trinque: current V requires that a file actually got edited to be an antecedent, but C editing B's work does not mean he's discarding A's, and A regrinding his patch means editing something edited in C to get in
trinque: right, so if we could do this, name unchanged antecedents that are required, could merge A's log patch and B's db patch in C's subsequent patch without having to manually edit A's or B's
mircea_popescu: specifically "do a good job in preference of a bad job, last longer".
mircea_popescu: a lesson for all future minds in there.
mircea_popescu: there's no difference i can observe between indiancandy scratching at the door and satoshi scratching at the door. there's a way to get in -- getting in "on their own terms" is not on the table at all.
trinque: asciilifeform: as a carving tool for the graph of knowledge
mircea_popescu: so for instance, "genesis a proper db ; then patch in three different branches for the three different types of node envisaged" doesn't seem on the face problematic.
trinque: anyhow lemme run at it again. you can't modularize because you have to fake work in a disparate part of the tree to merge
asciilifeform: if it dun have a trb genesis, proving to proverbial martian that it really does have classical 0.5.3 pedigree, goes from trivial to monumentallypainful
mircea_popescu: ie, i don't expect the trb cut as described to have a trb genesis necessariyl, or even probably.
mircea_popescu: there's nothing wrong either in principle or in practice with making a correct item as the genesis and then patching in various parts of trb.
mircea_popescu: ie it takes a major regrind ?
trinque: network in a generic gossipd press path
mircea_popescu: well, i am kind of a fan of the whole "v doesn't permit you to lie to yourself about having supposedly designed what's utterly an ad-hoc item".
trinque: trb's database interactions are properly in a filesystem-implementing walk of graph of human knowledge
mircea_popescu: now, is this enforcement a problem with v, is the proposition ? or is the aforegoing a misrepresentation of the discussion ?
mircea_popescu: let me put it this way, maybe resolves problem : v unpermits a specific kind of hack within the purview of this discussion, wherein one tries to design after the fact. correctly designed items will have the larger bits (by footprint) earlier in the patch tree ; and fray out correctly. github-style nonsensica commonly attempts to discover that "hey, this johnny come lately item should have been an evie-comes-early MODULE, let' ☟︎
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 01:41 trinque: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-27#1758909 << if vtronic software is the same frayed rope, no one can ever modularize within the same v-tree. this may be a feature.
mircea_popescu: lmao fucktard. a) the "pirate party" scam utterly fucking failed, how about addressing THAT ; b) kinda hard to have anyone ditch an empty ship, huh.
asciilifeform: or, on other end of the possible, a vtron that somehow understands that a call of foo necessarily depends on the patch that birthed foo... and requires disambiguation only if >1 foo exists in the tree ☟︎
asciilifeform: picture a kind of 'multiverse ada', where you dun call foo(bar), but instead foo:somepatchid(bar:somepatchid) etc, explicitly conforming to 'multiversism'... ☟︎
trinque tends many fires, but knows he owes a few posts
asciilifeform: i'd like to encourage trinque to put some of his 'crackpot' algos 'to paper', as articles. the hypertext thing was interesting imho, for instance, and so was earlier trinque pill for 'mining is a bug', and possibly other occasions. dun be afraid to write down conjectures, trinque , gauss did ☟︎
trinque: to my mind the hash is currently putting too narrow a constraint on the context within which the current patch is to be applied, where we could broaden the context at no detrimental, and possibly beneficial cost
asciilifeform: trinque: i'd go as far as to say that what you're observing is a defect in cpp, not v.
trinque: only way to make a 3rd improvement rely on two distinct improvements in past is to put cruft in both. ☟︎
asciilifeform: and yes every patch oughta stand as a leaf, pressable to .
trinque: should someone pressing think he has a coherent whole after pressing any patch? if not why?
trinque: what is the meaning of the hashes in a vpatch?
asciilifeform: that was a case when 'put in a comment to align vtronics and semantics' would have been The Right Thing
a111: Logged on 2017-12-21 17:38 mircea_popescu: anyway, continuing the trinque discussion, it seems entirely unavoidable that trb will become 3 things : a wallet node, optimized for pumping out local signed tx ; a block node, optimized for keeping the blockchain, getting blocks, no mempool nonsense ; and a spy node, optimized to keeping track of the lies and nonsense flowing through the relay network (mempool, timing nodes, what have you).
asciilifeform: trinque: it is only a problem if people do it unthinkingly, without understanding when to, when not to, and why
asciilifeform: trinque: i actually put a good bit of thought into the vtronic shape of ffa, while rewriting it ( current-day ffa , observe, is a rewrite, largely by hand, of the previous )
trinque: in either case, what does asciilifeform think of the ritual of "add comment to unrelated file to merge paths", not symptomatic of a problem?
trinque: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-27#1758909 << if vtronic software is the same frayed rope, no one can ever modularize within the same v-tree. this may be a feature. ☝︎☟︎
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 00:49 mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-27#1758901 << what's the problem with a "wasted" FZ anyway
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 00:45 mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-27#1758864 << you engage in a category error. you don't know what's in the box BEFORE opening the box.
mircea_popescu: damned thing was the size of a god damned depth charge
BingoBoingo: as per http://trilema.com/2016/a-complete-theory-of-politics/
BingoBoingo: Anyways thinking on the noob roughing up earlier, could be a side effect of tranquility overdose. Gotta torture betas.
mircea_popescu: a sense of confort, the common woman's mindeater.
a111: Logged on 2017-12-26 22:22 danielpbarron: wasn't indiancandy/sofiababy looking for a way to make bitcoin?
mircea_popescu: if you register a key you can self-voice don't have to keep doing this voicing thing
mircea_popescu: anyway, maybe the correct approach re the l0de thing would be something like a simulcast interview. you do interviews l0de ?
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 00:34 asciilifeform: ^ can anybody suggest a working variant ?
mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-27#1758901 << what's the problem with a "wasted" FZ anyway ☝︎☟︎
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 00:23 asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-26#1758779 << i see e.g. trb tree, as the frayed end of a rope. in long term, observe, the loose ends that dun get built on -- fade away, like orphan chains. btc is actually more or less same kind of system. but iirc we had this thread.
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 00:06 asciilifeform: let's say every homo redditus alive -- suddenly interested. then WHAT? what's gained, other than a great mass of meat that now gotta be put somewhere far from the reactor rods
mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-27#1758864 << you engage in a category error. you don't know what's in the box BEFORE opening the box. ☝︎☟︎
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-26#1758681 << if there existed anything like a market in (reasonably recent) miners -- they'd already be installed at the plant, in place of those gigantic resistors . ( and iirc there was a mircea_popescu thread, involving e.g. fish ponds ) ☝︎
asciilifeform: ^ can anybody suggest a working variant ? ☟︎
a111: Logged on 2017-12-26 20:29 mircea_popescu just dumped a whole sack of coal on teh grill, teh girls happily cleanning up a grosse of pleurotus... if anyone needs me ima be at teh rancho bbqing.
asciilifeform: i ~like~ that it is clear what parts of a whole were changed, and what -- left alone.
asciilifeform: ( i.e. it is already inescapably linear. asciilifeform half-expected that the kakoschism would produce a long-playing split of the trb universe, but neverhappened. not every possible thing, happens... )
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-26#1758779 << i see e.g. trb tree, as the frayed end of a rope. in long term, observe, the loose ends that dun get built on -- fade away, like orphan chains. btc is actually more or less same kind of system. but iirc we had this thread. ☝︎☟︎
asciilifeform: and how big will be the vtron ? mine was <400 lines. imho this is worth something. and every feature added, comes at a cost.
asciilifeform: every time think of a possible change : think, does this take it in the direction of heathendom ? can it still make a patch like http://btcbase.org/patches/asciilifeform_aggressive_pushgetblocks , where it is hammer-in-your-face-obvious to the reader that every single fucking line does ?
asciilifeform: i should not need to look for a meta-document (with own sig, presumably) to know which group of patchons constitutes e.g. 'asciilifeform_dns_thermonyukyoolar_kleansing' .
a111: Logged on 2017-12-26 21:42 phf: we also at some point had a thread, where i believe ascii but also others were leaning towards the idea of a single file vpatches (i.e. that a vpatch should only ever contain hunks for a single file). i'm starting to think that multi-file solutions in general are a hack ("we can't fit the entire compilation in memory"), but then i've been looking at TeX on one hand, and the "millions of support files" in diff/patch on the other
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-26#1758790 << this'd eat away substantially at the human-readability of the vpatch. which imho is a key property. ☝︎
a111: Logged on 2017-12-26 21:36 ben_vulpes: this still leaves me in the pickle of producing a vpatch from a press to a that won't actually descend linearly from a without touching a file, and adding "this line necessary to ensure this vpatch descends from a and not genesis"
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-26#1758781 << this only oughta be done in 2 situations -- 'releases' , as discussed by mod6 et al ; and to avoid fuckuppy as seen in orig shiva patch, where there was a logical dependence , but not a vtronic one , b/w shiva-part1 and -part2 ☝︎
asciilifeform: a v user is expected to do ~almost all~ of his manipulations, via manual file management.
asciilifeform: which, in the whole picture, does not come close to topping the list of the hardest labours of a trb experimenter
a111: Logged on 2017-12-26 21:42 ben_vulpes: phf: this exposes another problem: in ideal vtronics it is an illegal operation to press to multiple leaves at the same tree level, which is the only way to have a codebase against which to create a makefiles-type patch that ties multiple patches together
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-26#1758788 >> 'The founder also promised that in addition to the common practice of crediting BTC holders with equivalent balances of the new coin (B2X), they would also receive “a proportional number of Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoins as a reward for their commitment to progress.”' << lol!! ☝︎
asciilifeform: let's say every homo redditus alive -- suddenly interested. then WHAT? what's gained, other than a great mass of meat that now gotta be put somewhere far from the reactor rods ☟︎
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-26#1758839 << asciilifeform did a bit of survey of the sw spectrum ( where he lives , but also elsewhere, via helpful public toilet ip-streamed receivers. ) plenty of digital ???? in'ere. incl. in places where none 'ought', Officially, to be. but 1) could just as easily be usg 2) it's all, definitionally, carriered signal, or asciilifeform would never have learned of it ☝︎
a111: Logged on 2017-12-26 23:05 mircea_popescu: basically something like "do x, get y" with a well chosen x.
mircea_popescu: if we had a chinese girl that'd work, except, of course...
a111: Logged on 2017-12-26 22:22 danielpbarron: wasn't indiancandy/sofiababy looking for a way to make bitcoin?
a111: Logged on 2017-12-26 22:14 l0de: Or you can have someone call in to read a statement