917200+ entries in 0.707s
MJR_: the point of metadata is
that you can ignore it...
seongyupyoo: shitcoin sounds like an overall bad idea... not sure what purpose it serves
to have metadata on how dirty a coin is, an dwhat makes it dirty and who decides
ThickAsThieves: could
there be
tx fees
that were somehow porportionate
to
the amount of destroyed btc?
MJR_: but he would implement a distribution system if it
turned out
to be a problem
MJR_: ThickAsThieves: he said for now he keeps
them, since he doesn't see
that happening
ThickAsThieves: with nashx,
the main problem is just deciding how
to handle "destroyed" btc, is
that right?
mircea_popescu: i know it'd piss me off if i had
to check all incoming mpex funds for
this
tho
seongyupyoo: i have no idea what shitcoin getting attached
to a bitcoin means
mircea_popescu: bitcoin isn't universally compatible with
this sendfback
thing
tho
mircea_popescu: One potential problem with
the scheme is
that innocent receivers of bonded bitcoins would suffer if
the shitcoins attached
to said bitcoins are invoked at a later
time.
The obvious countermeasure is for would-be receivers of a particular bitcoin
to check (using automated means, of course) whether an unexpired Shitcoin bond is attached
to
these coins at
the particular
time
they are about
to receive
them.
seongyupyoo: so once a deal is made between
two parties, it's completely up
to
them
to do whatever
they need
to do
to make
their deal
mircea_popescu: "to collectively specify
the least-significant digits of
the
total amount" ahahaha ok mpex lives!
mircea_popescu: seongyupyoo
that is a big problem. i imagined you'd only allow people risk btc, and so your service couldn't be used for 1st
time btc buyers
MJR_: his exchange seems
to be based on a ltc
to btc model...which could work if i didn't find ltc useless
seongyupyoo: if you start getting in
the middle of
transactions between
traders, it starts becoming really difficult when you
try
to get in
the middle of
the USD
transactions
gribble: BTCUSD
ticker | Best bid: 154.03650, Best ask: 155.00000, Bid-ask spread: 0.96350, Last
trade: 154.03649, 24 hour volume: 122998.14095664, 24 hour low: 140.96635, 24 hour high: 162.00000, 24 hour vwap: 152.51401
seongyupyoo: well
that's been brought up a lot on reddit, but issue is
MJR_: yes, it is interesting from a
theoretical standpoint
mircea_popescu: so something worth doing with your
time if you're in a research mood. if you're in bread earner mood dunno.
seongyupyoo: yeah
that's another
thing i have
to
think about also
mircea_popescu: anyway,
the wrap-up for me seongyupyoo : it's certainly an interesting concept. it brings however very deep philosophical questions
to
the fore. impossible
to know if it'll acrtually be a productive business at
this point
seongyupyoo: if you're making 100
transactions of 1,
then you only need
to be risking 2btc
seongyupyoo: well, if you want
to make 1
transaction of size 100,
then you need
to be risking about 200 btc
MJR_: i was
thinking of scamming but only wanted
to do 50% of my possible scamming
seongyupyoo: is
there no party who can
take
this money and not be incentivized
to do bad?
mircea_popescu: seongyupyoo why you say people woudln't use
this for 100 btc ?
mircea_popescu: you're just a humourless protestant
that's why you
think so :D
mircea_popescu: but i
think it's fully argued, i don't see anything more for it
than what;s been said.
mircea_popescu: like, putting peiople in jail.
this is jailed money as it were.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform but
this is
the irrational part of reason : disposing of "bad".
seongyupyoo: it's definitely interesting idea i'll keep in mind, so far one of
the best and most unique
seongyupyoo: maybe it could
temp regular folks
to
take
the money and run a little more?
mircea_popescu: not like
there's a scammer anywhere going "o, you know what, let's just do 50% of scamming"
mircea_popescu: that's not a problem. scammers are already 100% driven
to scam 100% what
they can
seongyupyoo: interesting... so
that would drive scammers
to scam more for a chance
to undo
their scam for free
mircea_popescu: (because now
they both have
the original results
they wanted)
seongyupyoo: so i would have incentive
to
try
to increase destruction
seongyupyoo: if
the bet wins, it comes back
to me right?
seongyupyoo: well i
think my margin would be higher
than
that
mircea_popescu: i never
thought we'd have
the problem of what
to do with moneyz
seongyupyoo: that's giving sdice bad incentive
to do odd
things on nashx
mircea_popescu: or
that, yeah, maybe. bitbet is doing something similar for bad bets.
mircea_popescu: still,think : in
the volume approach, i can wash
trade myself into
the 99% position.
mircea_popescu: even if it is still very bad i
think (because bitcoin destruction is bad imo)
mircea_popescu: the volume one is very bad but slightly less bad
than
the active logins
mircea_popescu: in your model (active logins) : suppose you have 100 users. i make 9900 spam accounts and log
them in daily.
seongyupyoo: that is an idea... i was originally
thinking i would just see past few days logins and distribute evenly, as
that would be
the easiest
to implement
seongyupyoo: well sounds like you're exactly
the
type of person i would want
trading on nashx, so let me know what you
think, and i'll
try
to make it work for you, and
that should work for everyone
mircea_popescu: so suppose i do 80% of
trade on yoru site. does
this mean i get 80% of all "Destroyed" funds ?
mircea_popescu: seongyupyoo it's got my interest, which as anyone will
tell you is darned rare.
seongyupyoo: so i just wanted
to get something working out
there for people
to see
seongyupyoo: i just don't want
to go into coding all of
that without knowing
that
this app will get any
traction
mircea_popescu: if im
the most active
trader i have a perverse incentive
to scam ?