log☇︎
95200+ entries in 0.679s
phf: which is traditionally described in computing with same architecture terms, i.e. patterns
phf: well, as far as i understand it was us three arguing with asciilifeform from different angles
trinque: I have been arguing that the #include concept (styled (require ...) or whatever you like) gives a person a place past which he may "not have to care"
phf: but i haven't seen those problems yet in the bitcoin codebase, the problem that i did see is a certain deliberate apartness of tinyscheme related code, that subtly violate my assumptions in a nagging way that i described above. ☟︎
phf: i'm not sure i understand where compromise is. i'm comfortable working with big ball of mud. i see a vpatch as a transition of state of mud to a new state of mud and vpatch is an exhaustive description of what that state transition means. it's signed by asciilifeform which is all the pedigree i need. vpatch itself can come with out of band comment "might be buggy" or "ready for war deployment". there are known problems with that approach that manifest at scale (like for example multiple slightly conflicting version of "utilities" or "math functions" that get copied back and forth, finding bug in one means that the other might remain unpatched, etc.)
trinque: I'd expect it avoids the trap
trinque: one can always say "not as much as I've commited thus far"
phf: i think that a lot of these conversations come to a standstill because they deal with infinities, rather the shaping into a reasonable concrete. it seems proper that slapping new code onto bitcoin should come in a form of wot signed balls of mud, that don't particularly care about preserving all information and pedigrees and such. "i wrote this new math function and it uses this mp code that i lifted elsewhere but shaped enough that only relevant bits remain and for all practical purposes all you see in this patch is all that matters"
trinque: and we'll never know because as formed I cannot read bitcoin
trinque: for all I know boost does this very particular thing with memory allocation that obviates some race condition the whole concept has which prevented it from collapsing immediately
mod6: Gentlemen, I must bid you Good Evening. I'll pick this back up with you on the 'morrow. :]
trinque: I would understand more of what bitcoin *is* from an implementation with no dependencies than from what we have
asciilifeform: aaaaaaaand THIS is why i want to preserve ALL possible quanta of provenance.
trinque: but I have nfi what the fucking thing is, to this day
trinque: "I want incomprehensible wad of nonsense from PRECISE date over incomprehensible wad of nonsense from arbitrary date"
trinque: how am I to evaluate the question of whether I care about that?
asciilifeform: incidentally, at one point i signed 'this is the tarball of openssl circa 20xx from my hdd, sha512==H'
asciilifeform: phf: i still dun see where openssl comes in
asciilifeform: i ain't reading macbeth twice in one evening unless i ~want~ to.
asciilifeform: realize, if i strongly suspect that strings s1 and s2 are identical, i'ma diff'em.
trinque: when I read a definition of a lisp system which pulls 30 separate files into one namespace, I am reading a lie
asciilifeform: phf: i quite agree that rereading can be beneficial. but NOT forced 'paint the snow heaps white' ru army style.
phf: reading thing you wrote as applied to a new problem might potentially reveal issues. "oh this code uses strcpy with null pointer, strcpy is included from `my` code, so i'm going to make a bunch of assumptions that break down in this case"
asciilifeform: it was a 'i will NOT read a thing by hand to discover that it is actually equal to yesterday's thing'
mircea_popescu: iirc when i wanted to sanitize indents you quashed it mostly on the grounds of exactly this, "i want my diff to still work". well now ?
asciilifeform: by not reading THING I WROTE n+1th time
asciilifeform: if ~i chose to~ - then no, not waste.
asciilifeform: because if i cannot determine mechanically 'this is THE thing that ~i~ wrote' vs 'this is SOME OTHER thing that i must now read with magnifying glass' this wastes potentially weeks, months, years (depending on mass of turd) of my time.
mircea_popescu: i am of the same mind.
trinque: I will never sign off on a crypto util lib that has umpteen million functions
trinque: the problem is poorly formed; I would eventually sign off on a function that did RSA
asciilifeform: if i have to diff (or, satan forbid, VISUALLY INSPECT), e.g., mod6's ffz.adb to see what parts he changed from mine, and every single motherfucking time i find that it is nothing at all, then my time is wasted.
phf: i prefer to just loosen the requirements a bit. a failure in a vpatch doesn't need to result in public disgrace, shaming or execution. that might be one of reasons why work came to utter stand still, nobody wants to "sign off" on this or that like it's going to end in the style of diana_coman's story
trinque: I'm reminded of the call-graph thread
asciilifeform: i am NOT and will NOT be willing to sign off on, e.g., tinyscheme, or even trb, with same level of assurance as for code that i and i alone had written.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i been sayuing this for an hour now. YOU DONT FUCKING IMPORT THE WHOLE LIB VERBATIM. you take what you need, and adapt it to your project.
trinque: the thing on trial here is I just wanted to aes-128 or whatever; I did not want to openssl
asciilifeform: the part i disagree is mircea_popescu's apparent insistence that said chances ought to artificially obscure the origin
asciilifeform: i am entirely unconvinced.
asciilifeform: it doesn't point to a 'place where i swear i put a tinyscheme and not rm -rf'
asciilifeform: i believe that it is possible to actually solve a problem in a permanent way.
asciilifeform: i suspect that we are not going to agree.
mircea_popescu: as phf explains above, and as i've tried to.
mircea_popescu: i personally never got the idea it's part of trb or anything. seemed to me more like a "alf's other project", sort of like the ffz thing.
trinque: question wasn't (I thought) how V works, it's whether #include is a useful tool or a festering fucking sore
mod6: i think both are reasonable. this should be tabled for now for thought-experiment and real-experiment time.
phf: asciilifeform: i understand that but you're missing what i'm saying. you yourself said that you're not particularly trusting tinyscheme. it has overflow bugs, it has all kinds of issues, and keeping its apartness insulates ~you~ from a certain amount of responsibility. it's no longer serving a purpose as part of a bigger trb patch, now it's this third party "pedigree" thing, that we can sort of rely on, but nobody's responsible for etc.
asciilifeform: pop yer favourite text editor, and pick favourite vtron (i recommend mod6's) and play.
asciilifeform: i also recommend experimentation.
mircea_popescu: i suspect this matter requires more private meditation, because there seems to be relatively little common ground.
asciilifeform: when someone builds on my particular patch, i can never in the future move anything 'from under him'
trinque: I didn't read it; I just copied and pasted that hash from shithub
asciilifeform: i fail to see the point in pretending that x1, x2, x3, ... xn which are BITWISE IDENTICAL are different entities.
mircea_popescu: so i am.
mircea_popescu: there's not going to be any of this "o mom look at me i r coder too i included shit from github".
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform not in the slightest. you ever read a novel TWICE only to discover that hey, i hadsn't gotten it the first time ?
asciilifeform: (i compulsively re-read own shit)
asciilifeform: here i must agree with mircea_popescu .
mircea_popescu: apparently i wasn't ~missing~ the point eh.
asciilifeform: i ain't doing this.
asciilifeform: 'ffz', item i am working on now, is the finite field integer library.
asciilifeform: i will give example
asciilifeform: because he had nfi i existed ?
phf: well, it attempts to solve same problem that the vectors were solving, i.e. introducing code that you're not ready to reasonably support
mircea_popescu: but understand this clearly alf : the difference between "i produced this" and "i stole this from washington" is nil. if you stole it or wrote it - YOU PRODUCED IT.
phf: well, yes, that's the intent, but i'm saying that i'm not sure there's value in "i found this" when it breaks "i make this part of whole"
asciilifeform: i dun get it.
asciilifeform: phf: point was to separate 'i found this' from the 'and then i changed x,y,....'
asciilifeform: testament that 'yes this is what i had on optic disk for last 10y'
mircea_popescu: the pedigree, if it exists, comes from "i asciilifeform read this and i goes off genesis". nowhere else.
phf: yeah, i found that point of tinyscheme somewhat confusing. i understand asciilifeform's intent of "this is how i found tarball", but it seems to contradict wot aspects of v
asciilifeform: does mircea_popescu recall why i did the tinyscheme genesis the way i did ?
asciilifeform: and i seriously fail to see why mircea_popescu is barfing
trinque: this does not contradict the fact that the more the world looks like me, the happier I am
trinque: mircea_popescu │ the problems only begin when trinque goes on a jwz rampage "i only wanted the offspring to sprout, not rob the store". << I agree 100% that offspring are in any sane scenario mine to end
mod6: i think that it makes it confusing if we call it 'v-genesis'
mircea_popescu: the problems only begin when trinque goes on a jwz rampage "i only wanted the offspring to sprout, not rob the store".
asciilifeform: ^ this is PRECISELY what i mean by cutting apart.
trinque: I have always been aware of this aspect of sex when taking part in it
mod6: that's all i was trying to say :]
asciilifeform: mod6: i am somewhat perplexed re what you are asking
asciilifeform: light cone is what you get when you find the intersection of one particular observer's notion of 'i can see WHOLE UNIVERSE!1111' with... reality.
asciilifeform: the thing i was trying to invoke there was situation with, e.g., ancient greeks, who cite works that are no longer around.
asciilifeform: in that i COULD use it (if i took enough dope)
asciilifeform: mod6: not the concept i had in mind.
asciilifeform: if anybody wants to roll shiva in as part of his lineage, i recommend linking up part1 and part2 as mircea_popescu describes here.
asciilifeform: actually i'm sold on this
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform in the sense that it fails to attack to the tree it is very broken. i have no idea why a v build would even include it.
asciilifeform: until i create patch with G1 and G2 as antecedents.
asciilifeform: 'each own universe' until i invoke both and suddenly - collapsed into one.
mircea_popescu: i see only one.
asciilifeform: and i want to quote it twice. whatever.
asciilifeform: so long as i invoke H as precedent - it is valid.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: i don't see why a genesis with hash H has to be 'meta'-limited to only be antecedentable as 'part of project P'
mod6: let's say that i have this project called `t'. and I'd like to make it readily availble and a genesis for this specific tool.
asciilifeform: i don't see how
mircea_popescu: i dun wanna build windows.
mircea_popescu: i didn't realise he saw this as a mistake either!
mod6: im fine with this too -- alf sees this as a mistake. so just thought I'd take a minute to address the alternative. unless there is something that I haven't considered? asciilifeform? suggestions?
mircea_popescu: yeah but i'm totally lost as to what you're saying. looky : v works by starting with a genesis. correct ?