80800+ entries in 0.666s
mircea_popescu: there have to be layers. my hitting return is "this statement was made" ; my signing should be "this statement was made with
a view of it being opposable to the maker".
trinque: maybe you signed contract
A at one point, then signed B which brought about termination of
A, and I don't have B
mircea_popescu: i'm not about to give the wolf
a falx on top of everything.
mircea_popescu: trinque i don't think you did, but we ended up with
a whole front here and since we're discussing it let's discuss altogether.
mircea_popescu: to
A i shall say "and he doesn't snore" and to B i shall say "he's
a patient sort"
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-02#1576528 << they have to. there is no "one" answer. suppose the case where i rate someone X as
a 3 because i dunno, we go fishing. suppose
A asks me about X because he's contemplating going hunting, and B asks me about X because he's contemplating playing chess.
☝︎ mircea_popescu: trinque facts don't encode anything. that's what it's like to be
a fact - you may only be interpreted, but exist outside and above any meaning.
trinque: is not the binary number which represents
a rating
a fact, which encodes
a meaning?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform no. and this confusion between fact and fiction driven by the engineering perspective that "oh it is
a fact TO ME" eventually ends up with usg and the "fact" of "fake media"
mircea_popescu: trinque so basically, to understand this, the problem you are working against is this situation where you are tricked into making false payments by
a secret owner of your hardware ?
trinque: i.e. I immediately spray all signed material to
a box whose only function is to back up the pile of signed incoming statements, and over
a serial diode.
trinque: except that it has also secret levers which can be pulled over the network card with
a magic packet and all other sorts of nonsense
trinque: I have here
a machine with levers on it which can be pulled via proven control of
a given key
mircea_popescu:
a rating you mean ? but
a rating isn't an opinion, it's an advertisement. much like an offer in
a magazine is
a tender not
a deal.
trinque: it is
a fact that I have spoken this opinion at this time
trinque: in the case of both WoT and wallet, from an engineers perspective I have
a database which changes state when outside parties tell it.
mircea_popescu: because we've decided to live in the world as it is rather than wait for someone else (who ?) to make
a better one
a111: Logged on 2016-12-02 19:49 danielpbarron: there is no "verifying
a rating" beyond asking the rater yourself
mircea_popescu: there's absolutely no valuable information that would be lost if you fucked up the db today and we had to re-do it. just inconvenience to
a lot of live people, but it's of the nature of "tee hee i garbled everyone's shopping lists as found on the fridge" not of the "tee hee i burned all extant aramaic manuscripts".
a111: Logged on 2016-12-02 19:42 trinque: but at any rate, making the WoT something that can be rebuilt from public information when I am dead is
a good thing
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-02#1576515 << it is not
a good thing in any sense. think for
a moment : if the ratings are live, which is to say, they actually do stand up to their purpose of "if you try to eval x ask these people", then those people will re-advertise. if they do not, then they should have been deleted in the first place.
☝︎ ben_vulpes: the keys are out already, spend five seconds to write
a thing if it matters to you.
ben_vulpes:
a lifetime of communist-repressed masculinity leaking out i suppose
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-02#1576496 << this is
a bad idea, for multiple reasons. one of them being that it requires to give sign capacity to the clients, which is deeply undesirable ; another being that it encourages
a retarded notion/expectation of repudiability.
☝︎ a111: Logged on 2016-12-02 19:16 phf: according neil stephenson in such
a situation only womens will survive
a111: Logged on 2016-12-02 18:50 asciilifeform: aha, in the 'black schools' there is neverending fight, like in
a prison, and even bouncers to pry apart especially eager folk. and everyone with 'room temperature iq' however you measure it, also
mircea_popescu: with the light. you can put
a chick to sleep right now by covering its head. the brain is eye-powered like in frogs.
a111: Logged on 2016-12-02 21:36 mircea_popescu: how is
a squire supposed to fatten into
a sphere properly if there's no meal between lunch and dinner ?
a111: Logged on 2016-12-02 18:39 mats: at least half
a dozen by my count
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-02#1576455 << running the "oh, that wasn't
a wedding, who goes out in the desert to have weddings (outside of weirdo californians) and there was no leftover food or musical instruments or anything)" side by side with the AP footage showing all the lively colored bedding and pots and pans and various bits of goatfucker musical instruments is quite the COIN exercise.
☝︎ mircea_popescu: how is
a squire supposed to fatten into
a sphere properly if there's no meal between lunch and dinner ?
☟︎ trinque: something else comes to mind; there exists in our logs
a person named trinque who is not the present trinque
☟︎ trinque: and then yes, can't talk to
a deadman in either case.
phf: for me wot is
a partial externalization of
a hawala network and as far as -1,0,1 is concerned ~perhaps~ indicates prevalent opinions among the people whose opinion i value, but by convention only. in this sense the wot follows the lords and not the other way around. it has some practical use like serving as
a door bouncer and ostensibly letting newbs know who to talk to.
trinque: at least now we're in
a position to discuss the cost/benefit of
a forgetful WoT.
phf: asciilifeform: ok, my point was that i don't see how that's
a more fundamental than "no rating outside of rater"
trinque: asciilifeform: release gossipd already so I can write
a DHT for it !1!!1 solves WoT, solves "DNS", solves ...
phf: but what am i going to do with that knowledge? i'd still have to ask somebody (presumably you) to both proove overwnship of phuctor bot and to explain to me what those ratings mean. or else you have
a document that you prepared that explains the logic, etc.
phf: if i were to give
a pubkey to a111 and it starts rating people based on how many btcbase references they make
a day (there's
a quota!)
phf: i don't know if we disagree there, but i don't see how that makes
a difference
phf: well, if that's
a common understanding, then i don't understand mp's what is wot article
trinque: if my dead grandfather hated someone, I would most certainly care about that given that he was
a man I respected.
☟︎ trinque: asciilifeform: aha, wherever this data exists it is not implied by
a sig
trinque: I see this as the meaning of
a rating already. "This exists"
phf:
a magic talisman against badmen
trinque: certainly uncovers
a source of disagreement.
phf: i think it's entirely petty and pointless to use wot as
a weaponized shunning
trinque: phf: I understood, and it would make more sense then to have
a way of querying phf for his notebook
phf: asciilifeform: i understood your take and i think that wot is
a poor defense against "good looking corpse" problem
phf: yes, but i understand you, and you don't understand me, there's really no point in sparing until there's
a mutual disagreement over shared understanding. this is like sparring 101
phf: it's
a metaphor, you can find all kinds of ways to invalidate it, i was hoping it might clarify understanding
trinque: imagine I'm
a bot saying why after every danielpbarron
trinque: that is
a purpose. "so that I do not have an audit trail"
trinque: you are arguing *from*
a conclusion rather than towards one
trinque: I'm not going to provide Eulora infrastructure with
a standard of "if something fucks up, eh, we'll go back and fix it later"
trinque: great, but I'm discussing providing something as
a service as
a matter of business.
phf: the proposed alternative provides
a verifiable audit trail of all the ratings made by everyone, without necessary solving mitm problems
phf: the architecture ~right now~ is as secure as your setup. there's no way to mitm wot ratings. if there's an error in wot, there's not even
a point to start
a stink. you go and fix the rating if you changed it drunk, or you let trinque know that there's some serious issue. we unroll last week's signed wot and proceed from there
danielpbarron: the fork happened in the channel. we all read about it. whereas
a hack would have no context to back the rating up
danielpbarron: i've been reading the log for years. i'd very much like to see someone hack the bot and change ratings. let enemy make
a fool of himself
trinque: phf: how the fuck do I parse
a statement like that ^
phf: this is
a very beurocratic position
danielpbarron: i think it's even dangerous to use sigs to preserve things in stone like that. shouldn't be more than
a tool to ensure we're talking about the same text. tge signed material doesn't enforce itself. otherwise we're off into smart contract territory