499000+ entries in 0.323s
danielpbarron: ^ from
the guy who came into b-a
to register in
the gribble WoT post-fork
danielpbarron: I have no doubt
that
these same people, had you enthusiastically said
to
them, "Your 64MB flash drive will hold a 64GB in a few years and cost less!" would have scoffed at
the idea.
The same
thing is happening with Bitcoin. Men who know nothing about software are scoffing at
the idea
that Bitcoin can change and improve. Its an a-historical perspective,
to use parliamentary language. On IRC,
they simply say, "DERP!".
decimation remembers 'light wand' attached
to a serial
terminal he once used as a clerk
decimation: well,
there is some precedent for embedded devices reading optical codes -
the checkout counter
decimation: but I would also like
to pack enough bits on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper
to convey a 4096 bit rsa privkey
assbot: Logged on 31-03-2015 20:23:48; ascii_field: Chillum: barcode reader is simple enough conceptually
that it doesn't need a cpu.
decimation: so one can
take advantage of
that which exists already commercially, or 'do it self'
decimation: I suppose my overall point is
that if
the build
target is 'frozen', someone is gonna have
to maintain
the infrastructure
decimation: asciilifeform: well, self-reconstructing is one
thing, but certainly
the very 'base' install isn't much bigger
than a buildroot
decimation: perhaps not 'avionics grade', but
there is quite a bit of 'fix
this shit'
decimation: i admit
that many of
them are probably useful bugfixes
that are backported
decimation: but some of
them are probably fixes for obscure bugs
that might be useful
to know about
decimation: well, many of
them are probably not useful in
the context of buildroot
decimation: certainly I'm not saying
that
they should be
taken on redhat's name alone
decimation: if you look at
the contents of a src.rpm it's a collection of patches with
the original
tarball
decimation: well,
they follow exactly
the method you advocate
junseth: Hahaha. Are
they intelligent enough
to make
trades and
transact?
junseth: Haha, well a market is a place where individuals come and
transact.
That's what it means. What does it look like? I mean, it can look like a lot of
things. But a marketplace doesn't have
to look like any one
thing.
trinque: junseth: are
two male chimps in a cage a viable ecosystem?
junseth: Haha, I would probably apply
the supreme court porn
test
to whether somethign is a market or not
junseth: a market of
two
things is a market
junseth: haha, a market of
two people is a market.
trinque: nothing in *life* is unregulated but
this is distinct from saying *all* regulations come from *one* place
junseth: Hmm... well, I would say
that
ther eis probably no such
thing as a unregulated market. But any place
that exists wher epeople
transact is a market.
junseth: I would be willing
to bet a lot of money
that we agree on almost everything Bitcoin ,an dprobably disagree a lot about how markets work.
junseth: :) Haha. I agree with all of
that.
decimation: which is why
the work of
the foundation is so important
decimation: but its foundation of
trust lies fully in its protocol and specification
decimation: junseth:
the kinds of folks who would 'fall' for
those scams are generally not
the kind who are going
to matter in bitcoin over
the long
term
danielpbarron: but i'd keep my savings in bitcoin, using it
to replentish my gold coins on a monthly basis or something
junseth: I agree backing bitcoin with metal doesn't make sense. But
there are so many scams
that are showing up
these days
that are
taking advantage of
the sentiment
that a gold/silver backed crypto would be better.
danielpbarron: junseth, bitcoin is inherently valuable; it needs nothing else
to back it
junseth: danielbparron, Well, I would say
that electronic, non-government controlled money is better money. Bitcoin's decentralization lets us
take advantage of
those better features. Previous attempts at using what we all agreed would have been better were shutdown because
they were centralized.
decimation: ^
the above is lifted out of a section where dr. white was
talking about how
the scotish banking system was crushed by bank of england fiat banking
mats: what would
that even entail?
junseth: Do you
think
that Bitocin would be better if it were backed by gold or silver?
mats: oh
thank god
there's a
transcript
decimation: was even more stable in purchasing power. But in retrospect,
the variations in
the purchasing power of
the dollar under
the classical gold standard were
trivial compared
to what it's been under
the post-gold-standard period,
the fiat dollar standard. "
decimation: junseth: " But anyway, if you look at
that case, if you look at other cases, I
think
the pattern is pretty clear
that
the least restricted systems are
the ones
that performed best from
the point of view of
the average user of money. And
those were systems
that were on gold or silver standards. And
there doesn't seem
to have been any great dissatisfaction with
that.
There were proposals by some economists
to
try
to have a system
that
danielpbarron: ah yes, good habit
to cat .bitcoin/debug.log >> debug.log between each restart
junseth: trinque: I don't know many Bitcoiners who would disagree. I'm just less vehement about
that happening. I
think Bitcoin is better money.
trinque: junseth: I'm a "bitcoiner"
to see central banking go extinct
junseth: Haha, well
the question is what was
the alternative.
The alternative before
the Fed was not necessarily better. I'm not a fan of central banks. But I
think it's disingenuous
to say
that
the central bank hasn't done a decent job of "running"
the currency.
The solution is
to solve
the problems caused by central banking. I
think
that's why we're all Bitcoiners.
trinque: decimation: junseth: and
the subsidy of various "goods"
BingoBoingo: Solaris in all likelyhood far
too heavy and greasy
to adapt
to embedable minimalism
danielpbarron: junseth, see also
the arbitrary banning of various goods
decimation: junseth: well, in
the simple case,
the quantity of dollars
that are 'allowed'
to exist
BingoBoingo: decimation: Do you want
to make sense of ZFS
turd?
BingoBoingo: <decimation> it has
the advantage
that it is dead, which limits
the urge
to 'upgrade' <<
Thing is also huge, bloated
decimation: in
that case, a simple instruction set is a boon
decimation: it has
the advantage
that it is dead, which limits
the urge
to 'upgrade'
decimation: I'm referring
to
the now defunct 'open solaris'
decimation: junseth: how does
the market 'work' when it's being systematically manipulated in ways
that
the participants cannot readily observe?
danielpbarron: i don't
think
the argument posed was
that
they don't work, but
that
the U.S. hasn't had one for
the last century
junseth: RE:
the discussion about markets, I generally disagree with
the notion
that markets don't work. I know it's a common mantra. But markets, even decently regulated ones, work pretty well. Regulated markets price in
the cost of regulation.
decimation: failing
that I was
thinking mips with some variant of solaris
junseth: I really should have done it a long
time ago
junseth: That's a very good idea. I'll do
taht probably a little later
tonight.
decimation: i486 has a fairly simple instruction set, and it has
the advantage of being still 'executable' on modern cpus
danielpbarron: if you register a gpg key with assbot, i'm sure someone here will give you a +1 which would let you voice yourself, and
that lasts longer
than 30 minutes
decimation: terms of existence,
the idea of
the will of
the people is a genie or will o'
the wisp,
that we shouldn't really believe in. But for
technical reasons,
that notion of outcomes being
the will of
the people, we should be very skeptical about."
decimation: pretty good podcast
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/02/michael_munger_1.html >" But
that manipulation will not be apparent
to people unless
they have seen
this
technical result. Which means
that you sort of--you can have shamans, people who know
the rules, be in charge in ways
that are
tantamount
to dictatorship. So, we should be very skeptical about claims
that 'this is what
the people want.' I
think ontologically,
that is, in
decimation: junseth: if
the bond market is 'efficient' (for example), why does it seem
to oscillate between 'rally' and 'sell-off' seemingly dependent on how
the fed might act?
mircea_popescu: a play about
the free market, for instance, is not itself a free market.
mircea_popescu: not everything
that happens
to be perceptible is automatically a free market by virtue of
that.
junseth: It might be. I invite you
to explain why it's naive. If you can
tell me your inputs, I can
tell you why I agree or disagree.