1323 entries in 0.628s
gabriel_laddel: As for PGP, I'm assuming that I'm going to have to spend a decent amount of time with the codebase and reading the
spec. Perhaps not.
punkman: artifexd, maybe some relevant ideas for gossipd in that
spec Vexual: GAMMPool
spec are a little thin, what do you actually wanna do?
BingoBoingo: mircea_popescu: I have no idea for a better
spec.
mircea_popescu: and now im off to trilemize the dictionary/
spec discussion, if anyone wants to be in ask now.
mircea_popescu: i defy you to find a
spec anywhere in use in the shitstack today that manages to not include things it really has no business specifying.
mircea_popescu: that's the main task of
spec work : avoiding doing anything as much as humanly possible.
mircea_popescu: complex specs are in no sense better. the only thing a very complicated
spec shows is that the designer did not understand the overwhelming importance of not specifying.
jurov: &> file (aka >& file) is not part of the official POSIX shell
spec, but has been added to many Bourne shells as a convenience extension (it originally comes from csh).
mircea_popescu: nubbins` it's forever on the router dude. that was the
spec. for a box to plug into your spare router hole and sit there forevert.
decimation: mircea_popescu: well, the way it works now, to my understanding, is that there's a kind of wot among high-
spec clocks
mircea_popescu: standards are racist. the
spec is the code. WE ARE BRINGING STUFF TO AFRICA
jurov: well mircea, then make a
spec. many people unsuccessfully tried various mixing proposals that were supposed to do what you propose
mircea_popescu: <mircea_popescu> jurov i thought we were discussing bitcoin as a
spec, rather than bitcoin as a hack. <<
mircea_popescu: jurov i thought we were discussing bitcoin as a
spec, rather than bitcoin as a hack.
decimation: whether they want to create it or not, there is a
spec davout: gavinandresen: "okey dokey, then we might not have much to talk about if you want to stick with OpenSSL bugs that were included in the protocol by mistake." <<< actually i distinctly remember mike hearn telling me how that particular bug was part of the protocol and how it somehow justified not putting any effort towards actually specifying anything, in a
spec, not in code
mircea_popescu: <davout> just wondering if there was a specific reason it wasn't mentioned in the
spec << so people can have fun.
davout: just wondering if there was a specific reason it wasn't mentioned in the
spec davout: BingoBoingo: sure, but if your timestamping respects deedbot's
spec just get it included along
mircea_popescu: anyway, that
spec'll hafta be revised, but needs more thinking.
undata: I'm just taking the
spec as is, implementing around the go bot afore-linked
undata: the
spec intends assbots fingerprint is one param?
undata: mircea_popescu: I get "No data" from the link in your
spec article, and when I substitute my key's fingerprint
davout: that's how is
spec'd yes :-)
undata: I'm hacking on something now, but will wait for an updated
spec mircea_popescu: so i guess ima have to modify the
spec instead of finishing my "on terrorism' article.
assbot: Logged on 17-01-2015 22:34:54; davout: asciilifeform: yeah, that's what i was reading, it mentions user ids in the subpackets
spec, but i'm unsure whether that includes an actual key fingerprint, i tend to understand that it doesn't
davout: well, i was just reading about them in the deedbot
spec davout: asciilifeform: yeah, that's what i was reading, it mentions user ids in the subpackets
spec, but i'm unsure whether that includes an actual key fingerprint, i tend to understand that it doesn't
☟︎ davout: lol, where does the
spec even mention a second party?
davout: the version 4 signature subpacket
spec isn't that clear to me, maybe asciilifeform has some insight
davout: - alter
spec and add a gribble dependency
davout: oh, and it's ppl who have L1/L2 trust from assbot, a subset from the wot members sez the
spec davout: thing is, i was also reading mp's deedbot
spec, the part i was wondering about was the "extract keyid from signed message, and use it in w.b-a.link URL"
ben_vulpes: undata: if you're interested in implementing, talk to MP for the
spec artifexd: I believe the point is that Snowden didn't say gpg was compromised. However it could have been compromised since he left. Only mircea_popescu knows mircea_popescu's motivation for that
spec though.
mircea_popescu: davout if proof was needed that the 'teh-code-is-teh-
spec' approach is fundamentally braindamaged, well, look no further <>< clearly. not to mention the recent ecdsa openssl debacle, which is pretty much exactly a replay of the bdb stuff. "oh, we included code but we had no idea what it does" sort of approach to code-is-
spec specwork
davout: sgornick: an implementation detail in some older client does not count as a protocol rule in my book, if proof was needed that the 'teh-code-is-teh-
spec' approach is fundamentally braindamaged, well, look no further
BingoBoingo: One crack rock and a text file can test against an actual
spec.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i thought it's implicit in the
spec, in the "receiver decides if to relay" : you can configure a client to pass, to user or other clients, whatever you wish
mircea_popescu: artifexd you will notice the
spec is broadcast-oriented.
mircea_popescu: in both cases, we are discussing user Panopticon, who sees all and says nothing. now, in
spec as is, it is true that user P will know... nothing. correct ? whereas in your proposed
spec, he would know... everything. correct ?
mircea_popescu:
spec was simpler on the assumption that since the helo package is keyed to the supposed key of the server, there's no need to challenge
mircea_popescu: i don;'t see what in the
spec would prevent anyone from so doing.
mircea_popescu: there is no such thing as "sign for friends" outside of the model detailed in my
spec.
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: mebbe "heyo" ? make an argentine joke right in the
spec!
punkman: davout: who decided, and why, that the contents should be gpg signed ? << it was mp's
spec. even if you don't want to tie messages to identity, need some kind of access control and WoT works well for that
davout: guess i didn't see the
spec decimation: asciilifeform: if you got it to fully synch, the answer is 'no' as far as the '0.5.3
spec' is concerned right?
decimation: I just want the
spec and docs (with talmud of errata)
undata: asciilifeform: seems like there's just far too much
spec for that to happen
ben_vulpes: +asciilifeform:kakobrekla: i take it turdatron functions to
spec now? << what
spec gribble: You rated user punkman on Sun Oct 26 16:38:08 2014, with a rating of 2, and supplied these additional notes: improved on my
spec!.
assbot: Logged on 31-08-2014 02:17:56; assbot: Logged on 27-07-2014 19:05:02; asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: in 2010 i concocted a variant of the test that could be carried out for approx. 50k USD, from scratch. schwartz answered that, in his estimation, the test would work to
spec, but results would not be accepted by the field unless carried out on one of the two existing eotvos balances. one - adelberger's, one - chicom.
mircea_popescu: supposing you have a person printing machine, can make them up to
spec.
decimation: yeah that's all 'mil-
spec' hardware, with the 'round' connectors
mircea_popescu: borlandc++ sucked by comparison. maybe because i was too dumb to properly grok the language, or too lazy to learn the
spec decimation: unlike intel, the
spec should be published before the turd is made
mircea_popescu: mandarin was never specced, because, well... the speech is the
spec.
bounce has a phone
spec in mind that could stand building
Pierre_Rochard: Ok, will do! I’ll write up the
spec and pass it around