655500+ entries in 0.41s
unseen: mircea_popescu:the cost with a car should be 5%
the car, 95%
the gas. not 95%
the car
then sit around it listening
to music. << so basically stack of 600BTC recommended for a seat at
the
table
jurov: <mircea_popescu> jurov:
the solution is
to not have one global wot for everything << i don't see it. <<
there may be one global, but
there will always be plenty of local ones, often with contradicting information
ben_vulpes: insurance! i was just
thinking about putting 1 btc on no for "MPEx defaults by sept 2015"
mircea_popescu: the cost with a car should be 5%
the car, 95%
the gas. not 95%
the car
then sit around it listening
to music.
ben_vulpes: <mircea_popescu> unseen you know what
they say, best
time
to open a mpex acct was when it was free. 2nd best is now. << also, don't blow your btc stack on a seat.
[]bot: Bet placed: 1 BTC for No on "Bitcoin over $1000 before September"
http://bitbet.us/bet/866/ Odds: 17(Y):83(N) by coin, 29(Y):71(N) by weight.
Total bet: 38.00588622 BTC. Current weight: 30,230.
rithm: i added
that "d" on
the front
mircea_popescu: rithm: right
then we just devolve into some sort of ruling wot class <<
this is not properly called "devolve".
this is improvement.
mircea_popescu: just like
there's one global currency for everything,
that's
the nature of currencies whether
they measure
trust or capital or whatever form of
that same underlying.
mircea_popescu: however you implement it,
the situation in fact is
that you have one global wot for everything.
mircea_popescu: jurov:
the solution is
to not have one global wot for everything << i don't see it.
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves: now you can't escape
the system <<
this is exactly
true.
mircea_popescu: it's not enough
to have high ratings from disconnected subgraphs.
mircea_popescu: danielpbarron: well nanotube should make it so you can always give ratings, or maybe base it on an L2
thing like assbot does <<< it already is. in order
to be able
to rate you need
to be linked
to google.
mircea_popescu: political views are just as valid as economical views.
the distinction is not nearly as clear cut as you'd like it
to imagine.
rithm: when i see kids negrate flamewar each other for political views, i
tend
to stick
to
the 1:1
trade mentality
mircea_popescu: i
thought it was more. anyway, for a long
time kako had usagi + even if
the consensus in
the chan is -.
rithm: within
the last 90 days
rithm: i know for a fact i saw someone rate someone because of
their abortion views
rithm: i get
to see a lot of ratings for stupid
things like abortion
mircea_popescu: from
this profile it becomes clear why he's dangerous : superficially
trustworthy
tool = mole.
rithm: apeshit crazy on one hand. moral compass and won't steal on
the other
mircea_popescu: people wanting
to figure him out can ask mp and find out he's a
total
tool, and ask you and find he's
trustworthy with btc
rithm: but i
trust him with bitcoins
rithm: he's apeshit crazy,
true
mircea_popescu: in general
tho,
the wot benefits from fostering variety of approach. centralising a "set of rating practices" is actualy a valid attack
mircea_popescu: i won't presume
to interfere in experts manner and expertise.
mircea_popescu: well, how
the fuck would i know ? maybe
that's hoiw your magic works.
rithm: rating someone because
they look cool or seems smart is fruitless
rithm: right but i still won't rate someone who i've not a)
traded with or b) stalked because i have no knowledge of
that person
mircea_popescu: mike_c: rithm: but it's only harmful if 'total points' is a
thing. joe schmoe isn't going
to change
thhe gettrust between you and others. <<< if
the wot db ends up larger
than
ten blockchains it may become a problem
to host.
mircea_popescu: the wot would really work just as good as a balnced
ternary sistem really.
artifexd: Kinda like reading
the negative reviews on Amazon first
artifexd: And
the positive or negative of
the rating is an indication of whether you have negative or positive information?
mircea_popescu: rithm: no one will document
that and
take it seriously << a) no you can't and b) i seem
to recall footage of hruschev with his shoe.
fluffypony: so a much bigger
threat
to
the WoT
than a rating
that reflects
the
trade is
that few of us actually go and
talk
to
the people raters
to get a feel for
the person we're about
to deal with
mircea_popescu: so it's at least in principle and often practically difficult for a
third party
to dispute your ratings as appropriate or inappropriate.
mircea_popescu: that's
the big point
there. your rating quantity is not about
them at all. it's about you. you're describing yourself, as a repository of knowledge.
fluffypony: and I'll be like "he was fine at
the
time, but he's gone south since
then."
mircea_popescu: but of a meta-question. you're basically scoring yourself. "hopw likely am i
to be able
to answer someones' q's about
this guyu"
fluffypony: I'd expect
that someone
that wants
to deal with
them will come
talk
to me and say "I see you did a $100
trade with rg...is he
trustworthy?"
mircea_popescu: maybe i
trade 5k btc a week with someone and i can't go past 1.
mircea_popescu: maybe i know everything i need
to know about a girl from seeing her
tits online.
that's a solid 10.
fluffypony: I "know" nothing about
them beyond
that
fluffypony: mircea_popescu: my knowledge of a person could be limited
to a single
trade
assbot: What
the WoT is for, how it works and how
to use it. pe
Trilema - Un blog de Mircea Popescu.
mircea_popescu: fluffypony
the new orthodoxy being
that ratings reflect
the quality of your knowledge of
the person. not
the deal.
mircea_popescu: "how did you manage a
total score of 5000 while nobody of
the 300 people i know ever dealt with you ?"
fluffypony: and even
though
the WoT itself isn't quantitative, it doesn't mean
that ratings can't have quantitatively reflect
the value of dealings
mircea_popescu: mike_c srsly,
think about it. if his score implies a 40% probability people you know know him and yet nobody does.. isn;'t
that informative ?
fluffypony: danielpbarron: I don't disagree with genericpersona,
those ratings are far from
the biggest
threat
to
the WoT
artifexd: fluffypony: Sometimes I wonder if you are actually a small script
that looks like "echo reddit.com"
mike_c: " it reflects
the probability of a user being in your network." << who needs probabilities? gettrust works.
mircea_popescu: ;;later
tell genericpersona are you looking
to get negrated or what exactly is it ?
mircea_popescu: hopefully within not so very long having
to pay someone already in
the wot
to be able
to get in
the wot will be common practice, and
then all will be well.
mircea_popescu: bitcoin is not optional, bitcoin is mandatory. failure
to get in line is punished, not
tolerated.
mircea_popescu: and slavery is right and proper. if you're not into
the wot,
that is at your peril, and at great cost
to you.
mircea_popescu: it is GOOD
that existent users can make new users unable
to become users.
this is
the bitcoin implementation of slavery.
mircea_popescu: one could keep a machine on non stop
to just bloat nanotube's db, making accts, rating everyone, rewash
mircea_popescu: danielpbarron: i
think all users should be able
to give ratings; doesn't matter if
they are
trolls or scammers << it's not really a good idea, because spamming.
assbot: This Ice Cream Does Something Amazing Each
Time You Lick It | Video |
TheBlaze.com
mircea_popescu: mike_c: nanotube: why show "total points" on rating page? i
thought
that was supposed
to be a meaningless number. << it's not entirely meaningless. it reflects
the probability of a user being in your network.
mircea_popescu: Blazedout419: for a business bad ratings can hurt more
than for a regular user <<
this is widely held but empirically disproven. consider
the muchly discussed case of bitbet.
mircea_popescu: According
to
the records,
the first and only outgoing call
that was ever placed utilizing
the account was
to my undercover
telephone number.
This caff was pfaced on March 17, 2014 at 4:31 p.m. and went unanswered. Jones received
three incoming calls
that were answered. One call was from me and is detailed in
this affidavit.
The additjonal answered incoming
telephone calls appear
to have been from
telemarketers.
mircea_popescu: THIS WAS BUILT FROM
THE GROUND UP WITH SECURITY IN MIND!!!11
mircea_popescu: The records
turther detailed
that
the application was installed on an Apple iPhone
that was
titled 'Matthew Jones iphone. << secure minded fellow, he didn't use
the carrier phone #, he got a special app.
mircea_popescu: o bro. so why was
this guy connected
to bitcoin anyway ? seems like an ordinary
two bit crook with a beanie baby on
the coffee
table
mircea_popescu: the part where
they degrade
the arrangement
to
the point
they
talk
to
the guy on
the phone, and
then send direct dollars
to his bank acct...
mircea_popescu: ahahah not really above and beyond
to catch him, just probing
the shit out of it.
godovo: they really went above and beyond
to catch
this guy, impressive
mthreat: i used
to pay $10/month for someone
to do my laundry in 'da pen'
mircea_popescu: On October 9, 2013, I made contact with CALIGIRL utilizing
the Bitmessage program and
the 'trusted' Bitmessage address CALIGIRL provided. << nice use of airquotes
there lol
mircea_popescu: well
this particular
texan cali girl will probably be happier in
the pen
than on
the street anyway.
jurov: can i make
the seal with
the duble cherry
truck?
mike_c: more in-depth won't get read. slapping a "insured by mpex" seal on
the homepage will be seen.
unseen: jurov
thinking about it.
mircea_popescu: what is needed is perhaps more in depth explaining of how great
the system is, as it is.
jurov: and watch
the orderbook for nefarious activity
mthreat: mircea_popescu: I'd be an excellent
taxi driver
mthreat: mircea_popescu:
the ROI numbers sound good, on
the surface anyway