534600+ entries in 0.335s
Adlai: "but
the energy, effort and resources which could have been expended on comfortably yielding and productively submitting" << lol
Adlai: think of
the sarcasm as a barrier of entry against butthurtion
mircea_popescu: how did you get
this idea,
that if you don't follow something it's incumbent on me/the school/the world
to fix it for you ?
mircea_popescu: the notion
that you may participate without understanding is like... well, what all comedy gold is made out of, i guess.
Adlai: world use of
the version
that doesn't require a change before we
talk about making changes - my 2¢
Adlai: benjamindees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones << money doesn't have
to be convenient
to be useful, and
there are zillions of ways
to handle amounts
that aren't worth
the
transaction cost of lugging
the whole
thing around; some ways are more
transparent (like federated sidechains), and others less (like changetip). non-federated sidechains require changing bitcoin itself, so let's see real
mircea_popescu: i do not correct you, you're not
tim fucking swanson. you correct you.
mircea_popescu: if you're doing
this by accident, you'll stfu and go read. if you're doing it deliberately... well... you'll keep at it and we'll have our lulz and move on.
mircea_popescu: benjamindees you're completely and utterly misrepresenting
the discussion.
Adlai: (granted, it's a lot more work
than just asking people
to
trust you)
benjamindees: I've seen a couple of people say similar
things. It seemed natural
that if you are for a 1MB limit, you would be for sidechains as an avenue for growth or at least
to keep
the alts at bay.
Adlai: again, federated sidechains - great idea. you want a ledger with centralized control but accessible
to
the public,
that manipulates btc denominated assets?
this is how.
benjamindees: Adlai, I'm wondering what you all
think about it. I was under
the impression you were for
the idea.
Adlai thinks
that federated sidechains are a great idea and cointip, bitbase, changepay, whatever
they're called - should be using
those, if
they want
transparency
Adlai: benjamindees: wait, let's back up a bit, if not for your
then my sake. what's
the point of sidechains? i don't
think it's "paying for bitcoin mining"
benjamindees: more
transactions == growth in
transaction volume == more fees, not just higher fees
mircea_popescu: so your avenue
to pay for your starbucks is a) give
them some of your money ; b) borrow some money
to give
them or c) buy another soda ?
benjamindees: "there are
two avenues
to pay for it." <-- I disagree with
this, by
the way.
The
third avenue is
to pay for it with more
transactions, since
the major costs (mining) are fixed.
mircea_popescu: all screws are better
than
thumbtacks for
the man holding a hammer.
benjamindees: so, you're saying sidechains are better
than alts
mircea_popescu: good article,
that, incidentally, in
that it plainly discusses in 2013
things people imagine are "about
the future" in 2015.
Adlai: note
that for
the "real bitcoin",
this just has
the effect of further distinguishing it as such, if
the current mess didn't do
that well enough
mircea_popescu: which is fine,
they can struggle for as long as
they can gather
the energy.
mircea_popescu: Yet another one of
them is
that consumers revolt, entrepreneurs intervene, before
the end of 2015
there's about a
thousand
to a million different Bitcoin forks, each with its
ten million-ish monetary base worth about a dollar, on global average.
The size of
the inter-Bitcoins market,
the complexity and confusion ensuing makes pretty much everything unmanageable for
the "ordinary person".
Adlai: mircea_popescu: arguably,
the main/relevant effect of 'sidechains'
to date has been funnelling VC money into subsidizing full nodes... although i guess you don't
trust full nodes run by
those people... but you don't have
to because bitcoin
assbot: Logged on 09-02-2015 00:37:52; mircea_popescu: looky here : growing larger implies growing costs.
this is a given. a larger bitcoin will somehow be paid for.
xanthyos: i want no affiliation with mircea_popescu
the slave holder
Adlai: benjamindees: i just gave you
the shortcut, i believe you misprounounced "thanks"
xanthyos: please rate me down so i can't voice myself in
this
terrorist room anymore
benjamindees: mircea_popescu, ain't nobody got
time for
that
xanthyos: to all USG people reading
this log i am not antistatist or anti FIAT and i will
turn states evidence on danielpbarron
Adlai: no, i feel rather ignorant of
them. i understand
the
technical description in
the paper, but haven't given it enough
thought
to be for or against. i can't speak for other people in
this channel.
benjamindees: it's my understanding
that you all are generally in favor of sidechains?
Adlai: dunno officer, "you're a dead man" seemed quite clear
to me
mircea_popescu: well
technically
this was more in
the vein of horrible maiming and dismemberment
threats.
Adlai: i mean, if he's asking
to get
the police involved, don't
they love responding
to death
threats?
mircea_popescu: ;;later
tell ruin_dpbs_life Guilford, Connecticut << it's probably a decent idea
to not go
throwing around
threats off your home ip.
Adlai was just discussing death
threats yesterday...
they are as effective against humans as
they are ineffective against superhumans
assbot: You rated user xanthyos on 08-Oct-2014, with a rating of -5, and supplied
these additional notes: met in '04; he depends on government subsidies and will side with
the USG in order
to maintain his leech lifestyle..
ruin_dpbs_life: mircea_popescu: you do business wiht dpb i'll get
the police in volved
ruin_dpbs_life: danielpbarron: you're a dead man i'm going
to fucking do whatever it
takes
to hurt you
Adlai: it's an interesting idea, although i must say
that - as i understand it without having read
the entire paper - it's
too deterministic for my
tastes. i kinda like
the idea of deliberately random behavior.
mircea_popescu: maybe better
take it as "this man won't give me for free stuff
that people might get if
they pay upwards of six figures in fees. my feeble attempts
to defeat his defences
through 9yo discoursive
tactics are probably going
to fare about as well as 9yos generally fare against multi million dollar concerns."
Adlai had heard
the buzzword, hadn't bothered
to actually read about it until now
Adlai: mircea_popescu: i'll
take
that as a "haven't heard/cared about it", which is still a datapoint
Adlai: sure, but "frequent batch auction" has been published about a few
times
Adlai: when you designed mpex's 'quantum' matching engine, did you consider proposals of
the "frequent batch auction" persuasion? i have no stake in
this idea, just collecting opinions on it, as i form my own
mircea_popescu: think "occupywallstreet" or "feminism" or w/e. "the luxor center for businessmen".
these collections don't actually do anything, it's not unlike a coral discussing which way
to undulate for saving
the whales.
mircea_popescu: more like, "saving
the environment" is just as silly as any one
thing a bunch of useless, stupid and ignorant entities
that only exist because nobody ground uncle sam into
the ground yet could ever do.
Adlai:
the
tl;dr is
that "saving
the environment" is silly because
the environment exists with or without its "savers", and
that
the real meaning behind "saving
the environment" is "keeping
this environment as hospitable as possible
to us"
mircea_popescu: he doesn't mean
the people = "the people". he means
the people = your friends.
Adlai: do you know
the source?
mircea_popescu: "the planet is fine,
the people are fucked" is what people say when
they can't digest
the obvious "if you could understand more, you could understand more"
Adlai: i won't dispute
that nature computes.
Adlai: cf "the planet is fine,
the people are fucked"
Adlai: it's definitely something else, not "human" - but does it act in its own rational self interest? i'm not sure
the concept of "self interest" is meaningful when you're
talking about "nature"
mircea_popescu: just, 'no particular inclination
to gaze upon chtulhu'
Adlai: i'm not convinced
that "nature" as a whole can be considered an "econ"
Adlai: dunno, nature can still matter, even if individual snowflakes in an avalanche or looters in a mob, could be removed without significantly affecting
the whole. i choose
the mob analogy purposefully, because
these effects are rarely (ever?) constructive... construction seems
to
take either "superhuman" capacity (and effort), or enough
time for differential reproductive fitness
to do its
thing
mircea_popescu: (ie, "can't carry meaning". just like
the foregoing it's also logically necessary, no debate possible. it flows from what you're saying, which is essentially "humans are noise". sure. but noise doesn't really matter. like brownian motion.)
Adlai: sure. mattering is like driving skill... most datapoints
think
they're on
the opposite side of
the curve
mircea_popescu: if
this is how you redefine your humans, i will change "don't exist"
to "don't matter".
Adlai: so "econs" are
these mythical perfectly rational agents, and "humans" are
these neurological shitshows full of neuroses and emotions
that rarely act rationally. sure, some humans act quite rationally, but
they're
the exception.
Adlai: dunno, it makes perfect sense
to me
that computers produced by an evolutionary process would be far from perfect
Adlai next cites his dog's vet's
tatoo, or at least
the one he remembers: "humanity is overrated"
Adlai: i guess we just have different definitions of
the word "human". mine is preceded with a huge "only".
mircea_popescu: which will crumble in contact with
the other is kinda obvious.
mircea_popescu: whereas bitcoin enforces
this
through
the nature of money.
Adlai finds himself again bringing up kahneman, who
talks about "humans" vs "econs",
the latter describing
the rational agents of economic
theory, which don't actually exist on
this planet
mircea_popescu: the difference is
that
they enforce
this
through statal redistribution, which lives out of a hole in public choice
theory,
mircea_popescu: rational incentives don't enter into it. as far as derpy social studies
types are concerned, all effort available should go into
that.
mircea_popescu: is
there a rational incentive
to continue adding man-hours
to women's studies ?
Adlai: i guess it would depend on
the profitability, which starts getting outside
the scope of bitcoin itself
Adlai: still, i'm not sure
that
there's a rational incentive
to add energy
to mining activity once X% of
the planet's energy expenditure is dedicated
to mining
Adlai: signing
transactions
takes a bit of energy, and without fees from signed
transactions,
there's no point
to mining
mircea_popescu: as far as bitcoin is concerned,
there's no point
to energy other
than mining.