564800+ entries in 0.357s
assbot: Logged on 22-12-2014 21:58:57; Anduck: i'm not surprised. i still remember
the "you sent 10btc late
to bitbet, now it's ours because faq says it's ours now"
Anduck: punkman: how is
that even relevant?
Anduck: well, get me
the signature of
the contract
gribble: Error: For identification purposes, you must be authenticated
to use
the rating system.
Anduck: who am i
trying
to make damage against?
punkman: ;;rate Anduck -1 for
the purpose of #bitcoin-assets devoicing
undata: can't decide if Anduck is worse
than Luke-Jr
kakobrekla: it doesnt work
that way, but what would you know.
Anduck: i just find it quite sad
that an operator of
this channel keeps on harrassing with "you're
too stupid
to be here" and "go fuck yourself" etc
kakobrekla: its plain english as far as i can
tell
Anduck: "Anduck you are
too stupid
to be here."
gribble: Rating entry successful. Your rating for user Anduck has changed from -2
to -3.
assbot: Logged on 22-12-2014 23:16:46; Anduck: danielpbarron: well, let me know when you've parsed it so you can verify
that
the signature isn't
there, making
the contract not valid
kakobrekla: Anduck you are
too stupid
to be here. ppl want you gone and are asking me
to remove you with a +b which i will not do.
Anduck: it's funny how
the defences work.
Anduck: kakobrekla: who would you like
to ban and what for?
danielpbarron: if nobody can find
the signature,
that still doesn't prove it never existed
Anduck: but as long as
they can't, it's not fine
Anduck: if mpex can show
the signature, it's all fine.
Anduck: and it's missing
the signature.
Anduck: danielpbarron:
the copy is at
the mpex.
Anduck: it should be public
to show
that
the contract is valid
danielpbarron: but whoever cares probably still has a copy of
the contract somewhere
Anduck: danielpbarron: well, mpex doesn't have it apparently. or if
they do have,
they hide it
danielpbarron: i may not have
the signature, but me not having it does not prove
that it cannot be had
Anduck: this means
that
the contract is not valid.
Anduck: now let's discuss whether grubles signature (which would be needed
to make
the contract discussed earlier, valid) is not in place
danielpbarron: it is impossible
to prove
the absence of X, whether it be gpg signatures, or God
Anduck: i agree on you both: i don't understand gpg, life or bitcoin. let's be done with
that ok?
Anduck: so you're unable
to verify
the grubles' signature and sign
this verification for me?
Anduck: pls no derailing
this
time
mike_c: <+Anduck> if you have nothing
to contribute, you don't need
to
type anything here... k? << have you been in
this channel before?
☟︎ Anduck: which means
that mircea popescu is a con man
Anduck: danielpbarron: if you fail
to do
that signing and verification, it is evidence of
that
the said signature -does not exist-
Anduck: if you can't do
that, can you verify
the signature and sign
the verification
to me.
Anduck: well, can you _check_
that
the said signature isn't
there?
Anduck: danielpbarron: well, i am not
talking about "gpg verifying", i am
talking about verifying.
kakobrekla: we are playing with you like a retarded kitty before you run off
to get hit by a car.
Anduck: that may very well be so, could i just not discuss
this matter with danielpbarron in peace without your childish interruptions?
Anduck: if you have nothing
to contribute, you don't need
to
type anything here... k?
Anduck: kakobrekla: do you have something you want
to
tell me about
this or why do you keep
talking/shouting
to me?
kakobrekla: seems like lukejr
type of braindamage where
the hw has issues, not only sw.
danielpbarron: i can't verify
that such a signature doesn't exist
Anduck: danielpbarron: well, let me know when you've parsed it so you can verify
that
the signature isn't
there, making
the contract not valid
☟︎ danielpbarron: and
this clearsigning of clearsigned stuff can get a bit complicated
kakobrekla: not only bitcoin, he doesnt understand how
the internets works.
danielpbarron: does it matter where
the invalid signature is found?
Anduck: danielpbarron: verified
that
the contract needs grubles signature
to be valid and
the said signature is missing?
Elio19: Thanks for
the voice, but honestly i
think
the chan was better off before.
The reason is: It's nearly Christmas. And, im grinch.
undata: BingoBoingo: I enjoyed your recent article on
the DPR case
Anduck: heh. don't worry, no need
to really
danielpbarron: when is bitbet going
to start accepting redditnote?
Anduck: you don't apparently want
to understand what i am saying.
Anduck: cazalla: indeed - make
the refund automatic
then
Anduck: kakobrekla: do you
think it would be good way
to do it?
cazalla: Anduck, imagine worst
thing
that could happen is
that my bet is refunded in full.. well, why not bet on every known outcome and see if some slip past
the goalie
Anduck: kakobrekla: can coinbase just flee away with
the user-deposited funds because
they own
the private keys?
jurov: 2) is not placed in jurosdiction
that allows for it
cazalla: not really
the same
thing anyway
jurov: coinbase 1) does not have such provision in
their
terms of service
cazalla: well, don't
they already do
that when cancelling orders not in
their favour
Anduck: people sent
the bitcoins
there at
their own will, nobody forced
them
to
Anduck: stating
that
they own
the private keys so
they own
the bitcoins
Anduck: could coinbase now just
take all
the bitcoins and leave?
Anduck: jurov:
that is about mpex.
this what i am
talking about isn't about mpex. it's about bitbet.us
cazalla: one can imagine all
the wasted
time refunding angle shooters if such a policy wasn't in place
cazalla: Anduck, right because
theft is when someone willingly sends you something
Anduck: cazalla: well, it's still stealing even if
they deserve it
jurov: i just few days ago asked arij why he does not advertise bitvps on
this chan openly
Anduck: and i see a contract
that wasn't signed completely and still was accepted by mircea popescu
to be listed on mpex
Anduck: jborkl: he most likely can give you more accurate answers
than i can. i don't know about
this case
Anduck: jborkl: you can ask grubles about
the details of
this
cazalla: <Anduck> i'm not surprised. i still remember
the "you sent 10btc late
to bitbet, now it's ours because faq says it's ours now" <<< fuck angle shooters,
they deserve what
they get
jborkl: Anduck, what prompted
this? Is
there something prompting
this
Anduck: jurov:
that is not relevant
to
this case :)
jurov: ic, nobody knows anything,
they just occassionally come
to chan, stir shit up and leave
kakobrekla: Anduck by your idiotic definition of stealing, bitbet 'stole' way more
than 10 btc.
Anduck: i only know
that bitvps was listed against bitvps owners will
to mp
Anduck: jurov: i don't know about
that.
Anduck: just like
the stealing of 10 btc by bitbet.. owners of bitbet now claim "we own
the private key
that corresponds
to
the public key
the money was stent,
therefore money is now ours" if i understood kakos sentence correctly