74200+ entries in 1.706s
cazalla: BingoBoingo: mircea_popescu: Bitstamp's line is the 4th and they didn'
t announce before then. so if it was earlier still time for customers to get fucked pertending deposit addressses are theirs. <<< and there is still the issue of what amount of coins will not honoured by bitstamp after the annoucement
mircea_popescu: watch how in a few short months it won'
t be possible to buy bitcoin at any price.
mircea_popescu: what atlantic really means is "why are there so few black scammers in bitcoin, because that's all we know about anyway". and the reason couldn'
t possibly be "because they're just more honest than whitey"
mircea_popescu: jurov well ok, by and large for any expectation it won'
t be possible to make "all" work. because anyone can anything, and well...
BingoBoingo: mircea_popescu: Bitstamp's line is the 4th and they didn'
t announce before then. so if it was earlier still time for customers to get fucked pertending deposit addressses are theirs.
mircea_popescu: BingoBoingo wasn'
t the actual breach prior to the 4th ?
BingoBoingo: <mircea_popescu> now is the theory here that what, the haxxor is using on bitbet the same address that nejc was using on bitbet prior to the "hack" ? because why ? << I don'
t see any new bets after the 4th. COuld just be a derp who wanted to "win" to his Bitstamp deposit address?
jurov: tools like surl don'
t save it like ssh
jurov: i don'
t see how every time i'm accessing anything via
https/smtps i'm going to think whether this is the right cert
mircea_popescu: would work for a bank, wouldn'
t work for a newspaper sort of thing ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform they also managed this situation where all the shit online carries a "5000 derps that don'
t really exist LIKE THIS"
jurov: i don'
t contest that
mircea_popescu: sadly this won'
t be possible here, like it's not possible generally, but in spirit.
thestringpuller: like a kid having a temper tantrum in a store because mommy won'
t buy him gummy bears
mircea_popescu: "i want it" "are you paying for it ?" "no, but i still want it" "because ?" "because i say so, damn it" "this isn'
t fiat, billy" "fuck you stop opressing me"
BingoBoingo: mircea_popescu: Yeah. the skeleton in the RFC wasn'
t as revealing as the conversation was. gossipd putting the emphasis on Relay in IRC
ben_vulpes: <asciilifeform> [] i won'
t argue that wot moves ought to be retained for all eternity; but will say that some automatic caching is necessary << wotchains, perchance?
decimation: I don'
t see why one couldn'
t route ircd on top of ascii's udp-wot-internet
mircea_popescu: i might be especially thick, but i don'
t actually understand what decimation is saying.
mircea_popescu: you don'
t really need to hear anything back from anyone.
artifexd: upd is trivial for sending information if you don'
t care if they received it
mircea_popescu: more importantly, connections on the internet don'
t work unilaterally.
mircea_popescu: this part is finnicky. it shouldn'
t, ideally, but i don'
t see how it could be done.
mircea_popescu: this is paid for, somewhere, by someone. who is paying but me ? even if i can'
t show where it leeches me, it does. why should i ?
artifexd: I guess I like the default sign because I see myself as Panopticon. I don'
t talk much. But I watch and listen. Default-sign helps me.
mircea_popescu: at issue is your proposal to make this a reality for people you don'
t know.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform because whythe fuck do you care what some people you doin'
t know say on any topic ?
mircea_popescu: i don'
t see much has improved since the recording machine era. do you ?
mircea_popescu: none of their fuckinbg business. if they weren'
t invited to participate they can not RELY on the discussion.
artifexd: it allows third parties to construct undeniable chatlogs << while true, I don'
t see the issue with it
mircea_popescu: because we don'
t work for the group here. we work for the individual.
artifexd: It doesn'
t give weight to unknowns. It gives continuity do unknowns should they desire it.
mircea_popescu: blacklisting doesn'
t work, and whitelisting should be done locally, and responsibly.
mircea_popescu: now, why shouldn'
t this be the situation to everyone ?
artifexd: I wasn'
t imagining so many direct connections.
artifexd: Sure. Then the handshake doesn'
t go both ways, but the information shared is the same. I know you have the key you say you have. You know I have the key I say I have.
mircea_popescu: i don;'
t see what in the spec would prevent anyone from so doing.
mircea_popescu: as far as it's in the form "either you or A X" the only answer is "i don'
t care."
mircea_popescu: artifexd suppose you don'
t reg your name, and someone comes in as artifexd and says things. should you be forced somehow to say if this is the case or not ?
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla you know on reflection i'm the other way around ? i wouldn'
t irc with anyone i put my penis into
artifexd: I have a fingerprint. Or a public key. I give that fingerprint or key a name. Anything not that key or fingerprint won'
t match to the name.
mircea_popescu: for that matter, if we keep the A B C D ; X Y Z K convention, then A can impersonate K to Y only provided B isn'
t linked to C that is linked to D.
artifexd: That's why the fingerprint and the alias, right? Let the computer notice that the numbers don'
t match the the numbers that I identify as mircea.
artifexd: He can only impersonate me to people who don'
t have an absolutely direct connection to me.
mircea_popescu: he can only impersonate you to folk that don'
t know you.
artifexd: Preventing some douche from Bumfuck, Idaho from impersonating your hard built identity "isn'
t particularly good"?
mircea_popescu: we were discussing why it is good, and it turns out it isn'
t particularly, and so parsimony dictates it stays out.
mircea_popescu: in the case at hand, i'd know you are you, but i wouldn'
t know dddddd is anyone in particular.
artifexd: Trust doesn'
t mean that I take bob's word as gospel.
mircea_popescu: artifexd if you don'
t know bob, for all you know he's lying to you.
artifexd: Simple: I would sign all my messages so that if you told me that I said something that wasn'
t signed, I could legitimately call bullshit.
artifexd: Other than the argument that a signed "no" could be used for something malicious. Uh... It just means that you said no. It doesn'
t imply what you said no in response to. Just that you said no.
artifexd: I still haven'
t processed the wot part of the spec. I'm still trying to understand why you wouldn'
t sign the messages. It seems to be asking for evil actors.
mircea_popescu: are you sure those aren'
t simply the resuilts of "no more central server" ?
mircea_popescu: i don'
t think you will find the computerized means to ensure immutability.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform they don'
t dood. how do they disappear ?
mircea_popescu: i still can'
t possibly see what flaw you perceive with the wot part of gossipd