OneEyed: asa1024: I withdrew some 3 or 4 hours ago (around 17 BTC)

OneEyed: assbot: if you tried to withdraw a large amount, it may be unavailable yet in the hot wallet

OneEyed: EskimoBob: you must be mistaken: how could CPA close shop while it still has an ongoing uncancellable 100+ weeks contract with BMF?

OneEyed: Diablo-D3: I know that. But how will the dispute about this contract be resolved? Who will win? CPA shareholders or BMF shareholders? Can't be both.

OneEyed: Diablo-D3: so will the 5 BTC amount payed every week to CPA be reimbursed to BMF?

OneEyed: Diablo-D3: otherwise, it would be easy to assure a default and stop right in the middle of the contract when you feel it may effectively default

OneEyed: Diablo-D3: I understand CPA is paying out its ongoing debt, that is contracts that have already defaulted, that's not the same thing

OneEyed: Diablo-D3: agreed. Except that the contract is explicitely uncancellable. So to let CPA out of its obligations, BMF should ask for all the premiums already paid, if not more.

OneEyed: Unless BMF thinks that the insurance it signed the contract for is no longer worth the premium to be paid, and wants out as well :)

OneEyed: Diablo-D3: that's where the fact that both are run by the same person give it a meaning again: usagi can't say "eh, usagi said it was out of business, so I usagi can do nothing"

OneEyed: "Sorry guys, I've been screwed up by this usagi person - Yours, usagi"

OneEyed: Diablo-D3: why? When you agree to pay a premium every week for an insurance, you take the duration of the contract in account as well.

OneEyed: usagi: I'm seeing this and try to understand. So far, I can't understand the CPA / BMF situation.

OneEyed: usagi: you mean he wants people to understand by themselves? That looks rather sane to me, doesn't it?

OneEyed: usagi: I'm trying to understand why insuring BMF with CPA was a good idea to start with, given that you might have known that you would shut CPA down before paying BMF anything. I'm not in your head, so I cannot make my mind about whether you knew that you would or would not shut down CPA.

OneEyed: usagi: from where I stand, it looks like you may have setup this contract for the sole purpose of transferring money from BMF to CPA through the premiums, since CPA won't go through the planned contract length that you agreed with yourself upon.

OneEyed: But once again, you may not have planned to shut down CPA, but in this case, I don't understand why you decided for it.

OneEyed: And as a (admittedly not very good) go player myself, I can't read what you're trying to do here since it doesn't correspond to what you write.

OneEyed: (btw, usagi, at least one of the go books you pointed onto in the forum should be ran through LaTeX again, references are unresolved and appear like "page ???")

OneEyed: usagi: it makes your text look good though

OneEyed: usagi: and the diagrams look professional

OneEyed: I went to around 100 BTC worth of assets on GLBSE to 6 BTC in two weeks (with no loss, or even profit). I don't trust GLBSE with my coins anymore, since they may screw me if they don't like the issuer of the assets they let me invest in.

OneEyed: EskimoBob: I've seen that usagi accused you of being paid to spread FUD on him, but I've never seen anyone ask you if it was the case. So. Are you being paid by someone to damage usagi reputation in any way?

OneEyed: Diablo-D3: but he may not want to lie, and won't answer in this case :)

OneEyed: If EskimoBob says he is not being paid by anyone to do that, well, I would have no reason not to believe him so far.

OneEyed: But he is either AFK or not willing to answer that :)

OneEyed: EskimoBob: thanks :)

OneEyed: If someone wants to buy my last 44 shares of FDBF on GLBSE at 0.149253 per share, do it before dividend time tonight

OneEyed: usagi: did those person who "knew" what pirate was doing put any investment in CPA?

OneEyed: If they didn't, that's a sign that they were not confident enough to bet on pirate, even though they "knew". If they did, we now know that they are gullible people :)

OneEyed: EskimoBob: well, CPA has been running for almost 3 months before shutting down.

OneEyed: !ticker FDBF

OneEyed: EskimoBob: unless he's the majority shareholder as welll

OneEyed: usagi: you are in the real world, why don't you sue him?

OneEyed: Oh, I hadn't seen EskimoBob had a negative otc score

OneEyed: EskimoBob: I did :)

OneEyed: EskimoBob: are you in Estonia?

OneEyed: EskimoBob: I wondered, because of Otto de Voogd and you met, but he travels a lot from what I can read

OneEyed: usagi: what was that that you asked him to do for money exactly?

OneEyed: EskimoBob: I don't, I'm just a very satisfied investor, who is unwinding his position because I want out of GLBSE

OneEyed: EskimoBob: and I think people managing FDBF do a wonderful reporting job compared to other assets (I once tried investing in YABIF, and quickly got out because of obscure management practices)

OneEyed: Not very reliable under Firefox 15.0.1/Linux

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: do you plan to have a promotional period where registration of a new PGP key is free by any chance?

OneEyed: Yeah, I was talking about the future, not about the past :)

OneEyed: Yeah, I've read the FAQ, I was just wondering if there was going to be a promotion. Too bad then :)

OneEyed: I'm still wondering why you don't want to gain more on fees and less and registration.

OneEyed: And that would probably increase the liquidity on the exchange to have more people.

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: television?

OneEyed: Fair enough :)

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: out of curiosity, why don't you offer the possibility to update a key (expiration date, revocation)? It could be transferred the same way orders are, and that would make the system only more secure, wouldn't it?

OneEyed: Cylta: paranoia is good when other people assets are manipulated :)

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: the only risk is a DOS, since you cannot remove anything from a key, only add to it - and if someone manages to sign a revocation certificate for someone else, well, that someone else will be happy to have the revocation added to his key!

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: it gets fed the PGP signed orders in some way (serial link? private Ethernet connection? whatever), so the key updates could enter the same way. Anyway, I was just curious about it, I'm not requesting a change :)

OneEyed: (there is no risk in being fed invalid/bogus/attacker data, that's why people can trust keyservers, the only thing they can do is refuse to serve a key)

OneEyed: My point was that key update can be hijacked, that wouldn't do any harm except mark a compromised key as compromised

OneEyed: (read: revoked)

OneEyed: And even a revocation would only happen if the key was really compromised

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: what I had in mind, was a "gpg --refresh-keys" on an internet-connected server, then send the updated keyring to the non-internet machine, and have gpg merge both keyrings (keys being in append-only mode, this cannot remove any information or inject any bogus unsigned information, especially if no new keys are imported during the merge)

OneEyed: Only a keyring file, which is public information, would be transmitted

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: as far as security is concerned, I haven't seen anything against replay attack. Maybe the attacker should have the possibility to add a "serial" or "uid" extra field, to ensure a signed message cannot be submitted again without being regenerated (it would require a new UID).

OneEyed: (sorry if I look inquisitive, but your model is really interesting, I like this way of taking commands)

OneEyed: (oops, read "the customer", not "the attacker" :-)

OneEyed: You mean I can't sign a message containing "BUY|foobar|10|1", submit it, then submit it again a day later?

OneEyed: Or, as an attacker, intercept such a message, then resubmit it a day later, then again, then again, causing the original customer to buy 30 foobar instead of the intended 10?

OneEyed: (a day later might be one second later if I were really an attacker)

OneEyed: k

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: why? I am talking about intercepting the message as submitted, that is signed by the customer key and encrypted with mpex key.

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: why so? Do you check the signature date and require that it is unique?

OneEyed: (because the encryption happens afterwards, and can be done since the MPEX key is not secret)

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: so how do you distinguish between two identical orders and a replayed order then?

OneEyed: k

OneEyed: Yes, but an attacker might get Ce. Let's assume I intercept Ce via a man-in-the-middle attack.

OneEyed: Ok, so you identify Ce for uniqueness (with a checksum or whatever), to avoid replay, right?

OneEyed: :)

OneEyed: Ok, that's fine indeed. It means that the customer has to take care of not leaking Cs though.

OneEyed: But

OneEyed: *You* could replay the message then

OneEyed: And pretend he reused the same Cs, when he didn't

OneEyed: In fact (and I agree, that was not my original idea), the UID would protect the customer from you :)

OneEyed: (and protect you against false accusations of having replayed a message if the customers submits several times the same Cs)

OneEyed: You could also refuse to accept the same Cs and answer with "duplicate message error"

OneEyed: That would protect you from false claims, since you could produce the various signed messages with the repeated commands

OneEyed: (without UID, signing at different dates will produce different messages)

OneEyed: and you could not forge that

OneEyed: Let's assume I'm unsure it is wise to buy "foobar" at 1.0BTC/share

OneEyed: I sign one buy order for 1 share, then submit it 10 times

OneEyed: And later say "why did your system buy 10 shares, I only wanted one?"

OneEyed: Right now, you would be able to produce only one Cs. By mandating different messages, you would be protected :)

OneEyed: Anyway, thanks for the discussion, that was enlightening :)

OneEyed: Sure, but you insist on security, and that's a good thing. This would add security through forced trust (ability to produce individual messages) without any drawback.

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: no, you don't need to add anything

OneEyed: Just reject duplicate Cs

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: you don't have to! The signature date just ensures that signed messages won't be the same, by construction

OneEyed: No need to ever *read* the content

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: yeah, that's why you can't trust the date, I'm with you on this one, it makes no sense

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: but right now you *could* produce duplicate if you wanted

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: if answers are signed, then you cannot pretend an order never arrived, and if duplicates are not accepted, you cannot pretend an order was submitted twice, and everyone's safe :)

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: no, I have just read the FAQ, 20 BTC would eat much more than what I would gain, since I don't have much to trade (I just bought a couple hundreds BTC to play with)

OneEyed: And I did my PhD thesis a long time ago on distributed systems, and worked for a long time on trust issues in those systems (including protection against replay attacks, byzantine failures, dos, …)

OneEyed: so I'm quite familiar with the "trust" problem at hand (+, I've been using PGP then GPG for ~20 years, since Phil Zimmermann's first releases that I got from Usenet)

OneEyed: jurov: mircea_popescu is pretty sane as far as I can see!

OneEyed: (except that you have to trust him not to pretend you submitted the same signed message twice right now)

OneEyed: Oops, I mean mircea_popescu's implementation, not himself, I don't know him :)

OneEyed: jurov: he already has this kind of information on Ce, it's not a big deal to double the storage for it, it's only a few bytes per message

OneEyed: EskimoBob: I don't understand all this problem around porn. Is porn illegal where you live, or do you have any evidence that the porn hosted there is illegal?

OneEyed: Bastone: you don't even know how to troll obviously

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: what do you have against small dicks? You troll :)

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: btw, do you have any plan to sell FDBF outside GLBSE?

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: I was very happy with my 300 shares of FDBF, but I am selling (those at 0.149253 are mine, 39 remaining) because I really want out of GLBSE, I don't trust the site with my BTC anymore after the recent Goat assets drama

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: that's not the point - Goat may be a scammer, but GLBSE could have handled it much more gracefully for the investors

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: not much, I don't like the "real" finance world much :)

OneEyed: Oh, MPOE-PR is mircea_popescu girlfriend? I haven't followed the sitcom apparently, I thought it was Mircea himself.

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: you're wasting space, use "…" instead, Unicode rules :)

OneEyed: Like "touché"?

OneEyed: ⋅⋅⋅

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: I already notice you seem to think that uppercase letters are useless, now accented characters. 26 letters ought to be enough for everybody

OneEyed: Learn Portuguese, they have 23 letters, no K, W or Y

OneEyed: bitcoin-central.net has such a low liquidity… all trades for 2 days have been mine, that will total 20 BTC…

OneEyed: They have a French bank account, much better than the usual Polish one for other exchanges

OneEyed: Yeah, all European exchanges

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: I don't know if you've seen it, but EskimoBob was enquiring about any software used to manage FDBF

OneEyed: (he thought I was one of the owners, because I praised it)

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: should be in the history of this channel

OneEyed: 16:24:23* EskimoBob | OneEyed: you manage the FDBF? Do you guys use any accounting or portfolio management software? │@assbot

OneEyed: (was 14:24 UTC today)

OneEyed: And you seem to do a pretty fucking job. Nice returns + nice reporting

OneEyed: 16:24:23* EskimoBob | OneEyed: you manage the FDBF? Do you guys use any accounting or portfolio management software? │@assbot

OneEyed: (sorry for the bad paste)

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AkzS_thDsmwudHVKcFdMRXg5cjY3eklqNmxHeGlIeXc&single=true&gid=0&output=html

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: I happened to have it open in my browser

OneEyed: Oh yeah, I forgot you were in the same time zone as me

OneEyed: I'm not sure they is much potential for growth though. Liquidity on GLBSE is so low, that you wouldn't know what to do with 10,000 BTC if you could sell all the shares

OneEyed: ^they^there

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: yeah, probably

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: didn't you want to sell 100k shares?

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: oh, you're right, face value is .15, not .1, so 15kBTC

OneEyed: I wonder how much vescudero payed out of his own pocket to be able to pay all his investors back, and right in time. This was a tremendous service, but I bet this has been an awful loss for him.

OneEyed: mircea_popescu: yeah, but some of them had a chance to make a profit before. I think vescudero was just entering the btc game, so no profit to reinvest there.

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: confirmed

OneEyed: I spent two weeks in Amsterdam this summer, that was nice

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: would you be able to sell to aliens starting 2013?

OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: yeah, you can't sell weed to foreigners any more, could you sell parts of weed production?

OneEyed: I don't know what the new law (I don't even know if it's a law in fact) covers

OneEyed: Define handling :)