979900+ entries in 0.672s
jurov: or it was meant
the otther way around?
smickles: jurov: yeah, you could only get membership on
that forum if you had significant -otc
trust with mircea, or even better L2
trust
to mircea
jurov: mircea yes, but
there were some other ppl
that looked serious :)
jurov: and don't want
to install/maintain more stuff on
the vps just for
that
mircea_popescu: jurov forum was more a joke
thing. it was never open registration, so it wouldn't make
too good a support venue
jurov: i'd like
to have some support
topic for coinbr
jurov: in just got idea... saw some people advertising
their forum, can't remember
smickles: jurov: well, i wasn't making
the distinction
there, maybe out of my own ignorrance, but i saw a statement by piuk
that
those blockchian messags are in
txns via OP_DROP
Tritonio: hae you people seen
the amazingrando scam accusation? How big was his mining op?
jcpham: however
this doesn't prove an identity or ownership
jcpham: from
the same address for a
token amount
smickles: jurov:
that's what i'm saying,
the message is on an unrelated
tx
jcpham: the plaintiff will need
to prove ownership. i don't see where
that has been performed yet.
jurov: smickles.
the message was certainly NOT in
the
tx. it looks like was just slapped on some other unrelated
tx using blockchain.info
jcpham: i saw
the link but got busy
jcpham: i never listened
to it
smickles: jcpham: did you see what i declared as my company's
themesong?
smickles: people freaking out about
the state of
the world and going
to bitcoin would be interesting
gribble: BTCUSD
ticker | Best bid: 15.29900, Best ask: 15.29980, Bid-ask spread: 0.00080, Last
trade: 15.29900, 24 hour volume: 51318.02221687, 24 hour low: 14.45900, 24 hour high: 15.29990, 24 hour vwap: 14.82395
topace_: heh
this is gonna crash hard
smickles: i don't
think
the message could be added after
the fact, it's in
the
tx afaik, however,
the
tx with
the message was made on
this past 17th, and isn't
the 130 btc in question
jcpham: we know who or where
the current owner is, but can
the previous owner prove ownership
mircea_popescu: either sign with
the addy or show
the deposit slip issued by mpex.
jcpham: so now
there is
the issue of ownership
jcpham: it appears
that way from
the information i am reading
mircea_popescu: smickles it's not proof
that
the same person actually sent
the 130
jcpham: i assume
the message was added after
the fact and blochain.info allows something special
smickles: what are you saying it's not proof of? it looks like a message
they put up when decided
to sue mpex
mircea_popescu: problem is,
the addies
that signed are not
the addies
that sent
the 130
smickles: mircea_popescu: if it's in
the
tx, it is signed by
the sender
smickles: and
they use OP_DROP
to put
the message in
jcpham: If bitcointalk wasn't such a
toxic waste dump I'd suggest someone curate
this information ina
thread
jcpham: so
that idea negates
the claim
jcpham: if it was in
the
tranasaction
then
the
transaction isn't amistake
jcpham: i'm
thinking blockchain wallet
jurov: no you can't put stuff like
this into
tx
smickles: i
think it's stuff you can put in
the
tx
jurov: lol,
there's a nice public note on blockchain.info.. did not knew
this is possible
jcpham: iirc
the mpex faq had some such statement about incorrect amounts
smickles: well, I can't wait
to see
the argments presented
jurov: i would, and
then i'd argue it was nowhere sait it must be sent at once :P
jurov: did he at least send
the additional 0.04256216?
jcpham: i assume mpex
to be automated
jcpham: so it's a ssimple as someone not follwing
the rules
jcpham: is all i have deciphered
thus far
jcpham: but i would like any and al details
to
the particulars
jcpham: i
think you are correct. no cross-
talk
jcpham: also it looks like
this dispute is against mpex et al.
jcpham: yes where can ireadup on
the particulars
jcpham: that client is
the suck
smickles: damn mircea_popescu, who do you
think will be chosen as judges
jcpham: it's every exchange
too not just gox
jurov: mircea, dunno, perhaps some anarchist
thing
mircea_popescu: <topace_> i
think a lot of people foolishly
think
that
the crazy up luck month of december will continue << actually december wasn't much off ev was it ?
jcpham: 15.15
the kids are bidding
jcpham: We have good news we have had a new shipment come in yesterday and were able
to ship it
to you.
gribble: BTCUSD
ticker | Best bid: 14.90004, Best ask: 15.00000, Bid-ask spread: 0.09996, Last
trade: 14.90004, 24 hour volume: 48207.48847395, 24 hour low: 14.45900, 24 hour high: 15.00000, 24 hour vwap: 14.77713
jurov: Sunday night events. I
think we should definitely do it
that way.
jurov: I know how
to format Sunday. Some of you will also know how
to format
topace_: i
think a lot of people foolishly
think
that
the crazy up luck month of december will continue
Korbman: damn...glad
to see I'm still holding my shares of SDICE bought at .37 :P
pigeons: who is
this Shavers guy BFL hired for marketing?
pigeons: anyway, see, if
they were a scam, why even write
that in
the first place!
pigeons: but if big blocks like
that, bfl has
to rewrite
their
tablet software!
pigeons: mircea_popescu:
the other, non bfl asic manufacturers have mentioned
that
their devices are agnostic
to bitcoin mining, only for sha-256 hashing and i
think even agnosting
to
the 2x256
thing and all
that detail stuff being handled in host controller software
jcpham: i'm going
to keep mining as long as
the orphanage is paying my power bill
mircea_popescu: i have no clue about mining, but i've managed projects before and i'm inclined
to suspect
that probably
there are.
mircea_popescu: and
the question is, are
there asumptions baked in (or even burned into silicon)
mircea_popescu: the ideea is
that both will go up by degrees of magnitude (like, one or
two every year)
mircea_popescu: Korbman
there are
two factors here : hash speed and average block size.