mircea_popescu: this is a dubious statement.

mircea_popescu: the context is not imagined, but very mach part of a corrent understanding of text.

mircea_popescu: mno. "a" does not exist. mp(a) != rando(a).

mircea_popescu: so yes, monkey makes ballista, shoots man. then monkey settles down, forgets about balista for a minute, spends TWO CENTURIES trying to figure out what man had already said. a rather hollow sort of victory, at least to my eyes.

mircea_popescu: and while he's incapacitated, http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-21#1587343 << to briefly revisit the whole "greeks were actually smarter than you" thread : naive set theory (as expoused by, say, frege) runs into a problem known as russel's paradox : should the set of sets that don't include themselves include itself ? ☝︎

mircea_popescu: next a line will reference f1bebb8.... and next b line will reference 33529af2cb74...

mircea_popescu: mk a sec

mircea_popescu: now, because of a naive "repetition creates cycles" and "index=text content" joint assumption, you automatically imagine that two people signing the same (text+context) pair would create a cycle. not anymore - the situation neatly reduces to "two people sign the same patch", ie, having multiple seals for the same patch.

mircea_popescu: mplemented as introducing a comment which references the previous item in the indexed set - but this is by no means the only, or the required, or standards-candidate implementation.

mircea_popescu: nevertheless, two different solutions have been considered. one is to attach an outside clock to the process. this has the obvious disadvantage of attaching an outside clock to the process. the other is to modify the indexing process for the set, from the current "index is hash of textual content" to a more advanced "index is hash of textual content + its context". as an exemplary poc it was proposed that this change may be i

mircea_popescu: this outlines a theoretical problem, which is present. it does not have many practical implications at the present time for purely political ("thou shalt not cycle!" is an imperative) and sociological (not that many people hammering out that many patches yet) reasons. therefore its solution is not in any sense pressing.

mircea_popescu: except woe, you can't make it because someone already made a patch for this block and you aren't going to see another block without a patch.

mircea_popescu: the stoppage may require a patch

mircea_popescu: (it is uniquely idiotic to clock v patches by bitcoin - because for eg what happens in 2115 when v is the basis of bitcoin and a bug occurs which makes blocks not happen anymore and has to be fixed by a vpatch which can't exist because no blocks.)

mircea_popescu: in any case, as described v becomes an actual bitcoin , very much in the sense of "slavegirl powered btc" - each "block" ie vpatch is mined etc. this de facto allows to have things such as a "development clock" for perhaps other usage.

mircea_popescu: well, do we actually want this ? it doesn't seem to make sense ; in the sense that when you write the patch in question, you write it atop a specified code ; which is the result of a press ; which has a "last patch applied" necessarily. so that one should be the "antecedent" properly speaking.

mircea_popescu: it's a fixed word. you could have it #Patch for false

mircea_popescu: nono, just previous patch hash. whenever you sit down to write a patch, you sit down to write it atop a press, or at any rate the situation resulting from a press. that has a "last item pressed" by necessity, and THAT will be your header.

mircea_popescu: ie, if someone actually mines a hash, you mean ?

mircea_popescu: but this is a->b->c->d(=b). the only reason d is confused with b is because we don't hash correctly.

mircea_popescu: what i want is a->b->c->b.

mircea_popescu: asciilifeform this goes a->b b->c c->a

mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i specifically want a cycle (n >1) where one element traces back to genesis. it seems to me that because one patch can only identify one antecedent, it is not possible to create cycles for the ~same reason organic chemistry doesn't work on hydrogen and oxygen only.

mircea_popescu: so now. how would one make a cycle whereof at least one element actually traces back to genesis ?

mircea_popescu: so then how is it a cycle ?

mircea_popescu: how is it a cycle if it terminates ?

mircea_popescu: thinking about it, is it actually possible to make a cycle where at least one element traces back to genesis ?

mircea_popescu: this is because the "same" string (Foo Genesis, modified.) is NOT THE SAME string, depending on the contemplated context. it is a string in 846fdf... and ANOTHER string in whatever other context.

mircea_popescu: then therefore, do you agree with the proposition that signing S as long as S consists strtictly of computer code with no indication of context is a meaningless at best and dangerous at worst activity ?

mircea_popescu: let me approach this matter from a different pov. do you agree that a string S consisting of computer code can be, depending on the context in which it is patched, the right thing or a deliberate subversion ?

mircea_popescu: earlier a knowing later b's hash is equivalent to either time travel or hash breaking.

mircea_popescu: it's not altogether clear why the "hash whole thing, not just parts like fucking bitcoin blocks do" isn't a better solution. moves the clock externality to a strong hash externality

mircea_popescu: you made a blockchain dependency in 2015 ?

mircea_popescu: that is what a clock is.

mircea_popescu: but in any case, turns out v actually has a previously poorly understood externality, in the sense of, requires a clock.

mircea_popescu: because a) conventionally cycle-closing patches aren't to be released and b) anyone involved in a closed cycle gets hung ?

mircea_popescu: in any case i don't want to discuss problems in a marriage with proposed solutions.

mircea_popescu: this so far seems a lot like a kludge.