▁▁⏐︎▁▁▁▁▁▁ 19333
jurov: like 1CoinBr662GWdiqVz8mXJUnYjWZbBchKAb ?
jurov: but i need one per user anyway
thestringpuller: will that bid wall on mpoe have an effect?
jurov: oh that..... iirc it's put there by mircea himself, long time ago
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 7557 @ 0.00045842 = 3.4643 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 24043 @ 0.00045819 = 11.0163 BTC [-]
jurov: *it's been put there is moar correct, no?
thestringpuller: no the smaller one
thestringpuller: .00044939 @ sell depth ~ 1m
thestringpuller: people are selling into the wall
jurov: goodnight..have to wake early
mircea_popescu: jurov you have a data cap ?
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: you crazy romanian
mircea_popescu: hallo
mircea_popescu: ;;ticker
gribble: BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 10.75104, Best ask: 10.84000, Bid-ask spread: 0.08896, Last trade: 10.84000, 24 hour volume: 24221.65679096, 24 hour low: 10.58000, 24 hour high: 10.85000, 24 hour vwap: 10.73588
mircea_popescu: o headed back to 11 ?
mircea_popescu: lol
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: if i visit romania can we hang out and go to romanian strip clubs?
mircea_popescu: http://polimedia.us/dtng/c/src/134621792179.jpg butt at 11.
mircea_popescu: thestringpuller maybe.
pigeons: no strip clubs in romania yet, but mircea's has a sister
pigeons: #1 in all of romanistan
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: so option prices will decline as the month closes?
mircea_popescu: yes.
mircea_popescu: option price has a time component
thestringpuller: it feels like tehy are most effective at the end of the month...
copumpkin: thestringpuller: most effective?
thestringpuller: best to buy...
mircea_popescu: maybe
copumpkin: assuming he doesn't have a silly strategy, they're probably no better to buy
copumpkin: unless there's external information that he hasn't factored in
thestringpuller: the only reason my options paid off was the price was low during a price swap
thestringpuller: timing is the key factor...
mircea_popescu: nobody succeeds in timing the market.
copumpkin: it sure gets wannabe traders' rocks off though
mircea_popescu: true
copumpkin: best let people think they can
thestringpuller: not 100% of the time
copumpkin: the time is irrelevant
copumpkin: you want more than 50% of the money ;)
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 6500 @ 0.00045868 = 2.9814 BTC [+]
mircea_popescu: this has been the greatest fallacy in economics. the notion that human agency can improve the end results.
mircea_popescu: in fact hedge funds consistently underperform indexes.
copumpkin: except for a couple :)
mircea_popescu: ya, except for a couple : one that doesn't try to time and another that got there by accident.
copumpkin: :P
mircea_popescu: :p
mod6: haha
thestringpuller: what do they use instead of timing?
mircea_popescu: copumpkin i particularly enjoy the fact that all sorts of imbecile "economists" explain how vulnerable bitcoin is to "well established strategies"
mircea_popescu: and then i fail to see them raping bitcoin on mpex with those "well established" strategies of theirs.
copumpkin: duuude, just look at the charts
copumpkin: I'mma draw a fibonacci spiral
mircea_popescu: right-o
mod6: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-09-22/peak-career-risk-only-8-hedge-funds-are-outperforming-market
copumpkin: I'll invite you to my yacht later
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: what strategy would you use? or is it a trade secret?
mircea_popescu: "Bitcoin takes the monetary system back essentially a hundred years. We know how to beat that system. In fact, we know how to nuke it for profit"
mircea_popescu: and yet...
mircea_popescu: thestringpuller i use the strategy of "try to build useful things"
copumpkin: mod6: where do they get their data?
copumpkin: oh, from that chart from GS
mircea_popescu: sloppy 2nds
mod6: copumpkin: here's another i just found: http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-07-10/hfr-h1-hedge-funds-first-half-performance
mod6: anyway, its been widly reported this year -- just seaching on google for stuff.
thestringpuller: build useful things?
mircea_popescu: anyway, the massacre hedge funds are suffering at the hands of a compeltely imaginary stock market is really sad.
mircea_popescu: they should be rewarded for their prudence not punished for not having been dumb enough to play bernanke
copumpkin: mod6: oh, I was just looking for a list of who was doing better
mod6: oh my bad. :)
mod6: here's another one:
mod6: “Hedge funds are up 3.04% year-to-date as of September, 2012, compared to 13.97% for the S&P 500,” said Mary Ann Bartels, technical research analyst at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
mod6: “This ranks as the third worst relative performance for Q1-Q3 since our records begin in 1994, following 1995’s 12.8% and 1997’s 11%.”
mod6: http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/01/relative-hedge-fund-returns-worst-since-1997/
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 9100 @ 0.00045868 = 4.174 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 31900 @ 0.00045931 = 14.652 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 18680 @ 0.00046598 = 8.7045 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 8583 @ 0.00046708 = 4.0089 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 4000 @ 0.000468 = 1.872 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 5700 @ 0.00046805 = 2.6679 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 39900 @ 0.00046864 = 18.6987 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 12100 @ 0.00046909 = 5.676 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 14500 @ 0.00046956 = 6.8086 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 42025 @ 0.00046956 = 19.7333 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 8959 @ 0.00046965 = 4.2076 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 5800 @ 0.0004705 = 2.7289 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 16500 @ 0.00047103 = 7.772 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 7800 @ 0.00047186 = 3.6805 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 44300 @ 0.00047269 = 20.9402 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 28900 @ 0.00047316 = 13.6743 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 1157 @ 0.00047992 = 0.5553 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 700096 @ 0.00048 = 336.0461 BTC [+]
mod6: rally
mircea_popescu: o wow it was 45 ?
mircea_popescu: then again... october was a pretty darn shitty month.
mircea_popescu: mpoe made a wash, s.dice i guess will report its first loss ?
smickles: well, if people value mpex in terms of usd, a drop in usd/btc should mean s.mpoe rally
smickles: with a little lag, it seems
mircea_popescu: why would people value mpex in terms of usd ?
thestringpuller: btc/usd value is on the rise
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: you can get more shares for your btc
smickles: ;;ticker
gribble: BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 10.81400, Best ask: 10.81999, Bid-ask spread: 0.00599, Last trade: 10.82000, 24 hour volume: 24414.81850755, 24 hour low: 10.58000, 24 hour high: 10.85000, 24 hour vwap: 10.73950
thestringpuller: in terms of usd
mircea_popescu: i still don't see it.
mircea_popescu: i mean, i guess some do, but
smickles: mircea_popescu: It might be justifiable for someone with net worth which is mostly tied up in usd to value even things like MPEx in usd
mircea_popescu: like a convenience thing ?
smickles: convenience could be one reason. relatedly, maybe they can only 'think' in terms of usd
mircea_popescu: aka convenience. maybe so.
smickles: or they see it as an investment where they want a return in usd terms, they don't care about btc value fluctuations
mircea_popescu: ya i guess if they do that then weakening of btc/usd is actually buy signal for s.mpoe
mircea_popescu: as in, "get more shares of the same company for the same usd"
smickles: exactly
mircea_popescu: then lag would measure their usd -> btc -> mpex latency
smickles: additionally, their awareness
mircea_popescu: ya. like 24 hours, that's not too bad
mircea_popescu: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121158.0 i coulda sworn somebody was doing this exactly
smickles: yeah jjjimy or whatever his name is
mircea_popescu: nah
smickles: or did he get taken out in some way?
mircea_popescu: of the old guys
smickles: your sec sigline seems to be getting good exposure (for the forum)
mircea_popescu: it certainly seems to have broken the psychosis.
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: whats next?
mircea_popescu: who knows ?
thestringpuller: you do
thestringpuller: mr. illuminati
thestringpuller: i bet you manipulate the markets
thestringpuller: lol jk
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 18970 @ 0.00046037 = 8.7332 BTC [-]
mircea_popescu: and also slept with pirate's hot sister
smickles: http://polimedia.us/bitcoin/mpex.php?mpsic=B.MPCD.C
smickles: lol
mircea_popescu: heh
mircea_popescu: "he also lied about having an OTC rating at the time if the transaction to get me to send first. I was knew and didn't know what OCT was then and was desperate for money so I foolishly agreed."
smickles: at least it isn't a buy order
mircea_popescu: people should buy moar grammer
smickles: wow, i'ven't the mind to understand that
mircea_popescu: "I thought genjix had to eat catfood + bits of newspaper cause he was so poor ?" 0.0
mircea_popescu: o also, f.giga.etf going away on dec 1st, if anyone missed it earlier
mircea_popescu: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121308.0
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 900 @ 0.00045982 = 0.4138 BTC [-]
mircea_popescu: ;;ticker
gribble: BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 10.80101, Best ask: 10.88754, Bid-ask spread: 0.08653, Last trade: 10.80100, 24 hour volume: 25732.98766624, 24 hour low: 10.58000, 24 hour high: 10.89000, 24 hour vwap: 10.75200
BTC-Mining: What if the information is released at a later date?
mircea_popescu: i guess the proceeds get donated.
BTC-Mining: =/
mircea_popescu: what can i tell you.
mircea_popescu: it's been a month already. november is another month. how much later than that ? 2014 ?
BTC-Mining: Well maybe not.
BTC-Mining: But seeing as he sent payments (the good amounts) to many and it's not completed after one month, it doesn't look like he lost the database. But he's been incredibly slow.
mircea_popescu: irl dividends are paid yearly. in bitcoin people expect weekly, some even daily. monthly is considered VERY rarely.
mircea_popescu: yet when it comes to booking losses... nobody thinks o look, five weeks that's five irl years
BTC-Mining: So if he releases data, I would doubt it would happen by December 1st
mircea_popescu: really ?
BTC-Mining: really what?
mircea_popescu: i think it's much like missing persons. those not found in twoo weeks are never found.
BTC-Mining: Yes, but it's not like Nefario disappeared without any news with everything.
BTC-Mining: If one day, the website had suddenly disappeared along with Nefario, that would be acceptable.
mircea_popescu: well... the way these things work is that there's some communication originally... but nothing comes of it.
mircea_popescu: bitcoinica's still not paid. people still entertain the notion they will get something back, obviously, but it's been what, half a year.
BTC-Mining: But Nefario paid many people so far =/
mircea_popescu: bitfloor... went down, guy asked for our help, now he's gone.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining paid some people originally. that was weeks ago. then he stopped payng, and now his site is gone.
mircea_popescu: (in fact, it may well be argued nefario stole the few k btc he had of glbse money, then insisted theymos return the few hundred he held, then used that to pay SOME people and end of story there)
BTC-Mining: Last 2 statements seems innaccurate.
mircea_popescu: did he pay more than what theymos held ?
mircea_popescu: i recall you had a thread about it
BTC-Mining: Apparently, a lot more.
mircea_popescu: how much does it all add up to, got al ink handy ?
BTC-Mining: From only declared claims which are a lot fewer than the payment chains seen those claims are included in.
BTC-Mining: Let me fetch that
mircea_popescu: nm found it
mircea_popescu: i see ~1300 btc ? (why not add a TOTAL at the end ?)
BTC-Mining: Not a bad idea
mircea_popescu: but anyway, a key consideration is that those shareholder lists are only useful early on. they decay so to speak
BTC-Mining: But claims are included in payment chains for much larger amounts. It is yet to see if users received all of those without more claims.
mircea_popescu: suppsoe i have a 1k btc payment in my wallet (and it's all i have)
mircea_popescu: if i pay you 100 btc, is it right that my program takes 100 btc to your address and 900 btc to another address of mine ?
BTC-Mining: Yup
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 16457 @ 0.00045819 = 7.5404 BTC [-]
mircea_popescu: so...
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 5243 @ 0.00045799 = 2.4012 BTC [-]
BTC-Mining: Should be like that, considering that's how bitcoin transactions work...
mircea_popescu: much more importantly tho, were all the payments sorta early oct ?
BTC-Mining: Mid october. Had been over a week.
mircea_popescu: mk
mircea_popescu: so what makes you think that the lists will be released, but after december ?
BTC-Mining: At least for mine. I was one of the first paid out I think.
BTC-Mining: Because since Nefario did not disappear with the funds, I still believe it is in the "realm of probable" that he'll release the information, and not in the "realm of possible"
mircea_popescu: ok, so you believe he'll release it
mircea_popescu: but why wouyld it take another month ?
BTC-Mining: You know how it was. Nefario would say he'd have a new feature released next week and end up completing it 2 month laters.
mircea_popescu: you gotta be kidding me
BTC-Mining: He also managed to screw up payments on the 16th
BTC-Mining: and he seems to want to send all balances out before then giving the addresses to issuers.
mircea_popescu: so when exactly do you expect the shareholder lists to be released ?
BTC-Mining: Somewhere in the next weeks to 3 months
BTC-Mining: After that I'd probably start to assume he managed to lose the database after closing GLBSE
mircea_popescu: mk, so wanna bet the shareholder lists aren't released by feb 1st ?
BTC-Mining: feb 1st? I'd bet you 5 BTC it is released by then. (For those who submitted their information, not in full.)
mircea_popescu: what were decent-ish assets there ? giga, asicminer and what'd be a third ?
BTC-Mining: Bitbond
kakobrekla: so who is going to escrow the bet
BTC-Mining: and quite a few lowball mining operations
BTC-Mining: Mutual trust?
BTC-Mining: Unless mircea wants an escrow for this one.
mircea_popescu: mkay. so " by feb 1st more than half the shareholders are reinstated in at least two of gigamining, asicminer, bitbond as a result of nefario releasing the lists to the respective asset owners"
mircea_popescu: is our bet.
mircea_popescu: works for you ?
BTC-Mining: I have no idea what proportion of holders gave their info to be sent to issuer. I would go more by the lack of complaints that some submitted their info and weren't included in the list sent to issuer.
mircea_popescu: hm
mircea_popescu: but i mean... if not even half the shareholders are reinstated the thing is moot anyway
mircea_popescu: might as well not have happened
BTC-Mining: Yes, but if the contact information was not given, it's impossible to release that info to issuers anyway. But technically, that means Nefario would have released the full list if he could have done so, so theorically, it would be done.
BTC-Mining: Let's say, if any of gigamining, asicminer or bitbond have together a total of at least 2 or more complaints from members with 50+ posts that they submitted their info but are not included in the released list, or the information for any of those 3 asset is not released at all by February 1st, it shall be deamed the information was not released.
mircea_popescu: well so theoretically he's done it already ><
mircea_popescu: ok, i guess i can go with that for 5 btc
BTC-Mining: No, because he received the contact information from an unkown amount of persons but no issuers were forwarded that info. So even theorically, he has not released the data.
mircea_popescu: im mostly curious to find what exact way does nefario find to both fuck up in some entirely unexpected novel way and also render this bet moot in one fell swoop
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 26700 @ 0.00045799 = 12.2283 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 19867 @ 0.00045982 = 9.1352 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 12000 @ 0.00046388 = 5.5666 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 24733 @ 0.00046502 = 11.5013 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 43400 @ 0.0004657 = 20.2114 BTC [+]
BTC-Mining: He'll accidentally provoke a vacuum metastability event, resulting in a stabler state propagating throughout the Universe at the speed of light, defining new constants for the laws of physics, rendering all Earth and its matter... different.
BTC-Mining: Rendering everything seen by humans pretty much meaningless.
BTC-Mining: Including the bet.
BTC-Mining: How does that sound?
dub: wat
mircea_popescu: that sounds muchly exaggerated.
BTC-Mining: Yes. It is.
BTC-Mining: It's the most blown out of proportion screw up someone could do.
mircea_popescu: i would guess he just mixes the shareholder tables
mircea_popescu: sends company 1 list for company 2
BTC-Mining: eh, I'd consider that as information not released.
BTC-Mining: As the correct issuer would not have the correct information.
mircea_popescu: ya but he wouldn't know this
mircea_popescu: and seeing how there's maybe a coupla dozen actual people with actual investments
mircea_popescu: and they mostly held everything, being re
BTC-Mining: That he knows matter not. Just that each issuer receives all the information Nefario was aware of, and that they have the correct information.
mircea_popescu: being rearranged aroung might not even be noticed
BTC-Mining: Since AML was not required and the majority probably claimed...
BTC-Mining: I would doubt it would go unnoticed.
BTC-Mining: The total amount of shares vary a lot.
BTC-Mining: From one issue to the other.
mircea_popescu: well ok then
BTC-Mining: Plus some people would certainly they got shares of X instead of Y.
BTC-Mining: Some might not complain... but many would.
BTC-Mining: I'm sure the outcome will be very clear.
BTC-Mining: oh, and dub
BTC-Mining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum
mircea_popescu: Barack Obama will be re-elected as the president of USA
mircea_popescu: 955.94 347.20
mircea_popescu: Mitt Romney will be elected President of the USA
mircea_popescu: 80.90 227.78
mircea_popescu: ;;calc 227.78 / 80.9
gribble: 2.81557478368
mircea_popescu: ;;calc 955.94/347.20
gribble: 2.75328341014
BTC-Mining: But really, what bothers me is not the delisting (and trading stopping, which would be appropriate), but the complete deletion of data. The ETF has no terms reserving yourself the right to arbitrarily void the obligation.
BTC-Mining: I would expect the obligation to be honored, wether the assets resurface in 1 day or 2 years.
BTC-Mining: Keeping the data aside doesn't cost much logistically.
mircea_popescu: well, it is kept aside if you keep your stats.
mircea_popescu: mpex isn't designed to be a sort of glbse
BTC-Mining: Hmm, but the data does exist. Wouldn't a simple backup of the tables containing the data for the ETF be enough?
mircea_popescu: enough for what tho ?
BTC-Mining: To reinstate it should it become possible.
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 24400 @ 0.00046534 = 11.3543 BTC [-]
mircea_popescu: nah, if it doesn't come to its senses by dec 1st it's not getting reinstated.
mircea_popescu: some direct thing, maybe, but glbse shares, no.
BTC-Mining: That's the thing, they would be direct shares with Gigamining should the information be released.
BTC-Mining: not GLBSE shares
mircea_popescu: basically, the reasoning is this : there was a company organised to finance a ship sent to wherever.
mircea_popescu: that ship was lost at sea
mircea_popescu: if it's not heard from in X time, the company is dissolved as worthless.
BTC-Mining: Gigavps keeps track of all payments due and if information is released, will pay all what is due.
BTC-Mining: The "company" is neither lost, or getting dissolved.
mircea_popescu: the etf held glbse shares.
mircea_popescu: that's the ship.
mircea_popescu: sure, the concept of spices, or the concept of cargo, or the ship's destination still exists.
mircea_popescu: but the ship itself is lost at sea.
BTC-Mining: The ship's location is known. Who the cargo is to be delivered to is not known.
BTC-Mining: GLBSE simply either hasn't released who had how many shares.
mircea_popescu: but glbse.com is no longer responding, is it.
BTC-Mining: Nefario still talked to a few people recently. But doesn't answer publicly or to support requests.
mircea_popescu: not what i said tho.
mircea_popescu: glbse.com is no longer responding, the website itself.
BTC-Mining: Probably because they consist on thousands upon thousands of tickets looking like: "I haven't received my balance yet. Why?"
BTC-Mining: Ah, GLBSE.com
mircea_popescu: yes. so no, the ship's location is not known.
mircea_popescu: it USED to be known.
mircea_popescu: and back when it still was known, we were still waiting.
BTC-Mining: I don't see how GLBSE is the ship. The ship is Gigavps's mining operation.
mircea_popescu: well that's an incorrect representation. obviously it may be convenient, but it's not the case.
mircea_popescu: the etf held glbse shares, nothing else.
BTC-Mining: Your IPO technically states: "The owner of this ETF holds 900 perpetual 5.0Mh/s bonds (details), "
BTC-Mining: Not GLBSE shares, GIGAMINING mining bonds.
kakobrekla: the ship is sailing in milk.
mircea_popescu: there's sufficient reference to "owning shares" to satisfy this point.
mircea_popescu: lol kakobrekla
BTC-Mining: The shares were traded on GLBSE. But GLBSE was never the ship. It never mined or produced the returns. It was merely sending the ship where it was to be delivered. Now the ship doesn't know where to go.
mircea_popescu: The shares were traded on GLBSE. But GLBSE was never the ship. << what's this, cognitive dissonance 101 ?
BTC-Mining: Because GLBSE was never the shares or represented them, they were merely a platform to exchange the bonds.
mircea_popescu: this is not true.
mircea_popescu: this is true of mpex, yes, because mpex is correctly designed
mircea_popescu: not the case of glbse however.
mircea_popescu: with glbse, nefario == glbse == the shares. there's no way to actually make these distinctions you'd like
mircea_popescu: sure, they're desperately needed, but unfortunately did not exist.
kakobrekla: I think Pirates like Goats Milk.
BTC-Mining: What you're saying sounds like if my broker, after the NYSE let's say is hit by a meteor and trading is halted, coming to me to say he has no news of when it will come back and that holders data might or might not be lost, possibly never to come back and says "You have to let go." (said in a very comforting voice, patting you on the shoulder, with a grin on his face), because obviously
BTC-Mining: the traded company and their stock don't exist without the stock exchange. So he'll delete all his records of which stocks that he held in my name because he consider the ship lost at see. And if data comes back: "Oh sorry. Can't give you anything, I don't have records showing what I owe you."
mircea_popescu: why does it sound like that ?
BTC-Mining: Because that's exactly what you're doing? Except the moment where you tell me I have to let go.
BTC-Mining: It's not like someone lost at see who is declared as such because he can't survive too long in the open sea so all efforts should be abandoned. Shares can't die, even if lost for years.
mircea_popescu: but you are familiar with the circumstance that the nyse merely trades, there's clearing houses and depositary isntitutions which actually hold the shares and settle/clear the transactions
mircea_popescu: correct ?
mircea_popescu: well ?!
BTC-Mining: Yes, and it should have been done. The fact GLBSE was 100% central seems moot however. Because the fact the data might not resurface and the broker might not get access to the shares he held for me does not excuse him to erase all data just for the heck of it based on his personal expectations of what will happen. I would expect the same from someone managing an ETF.
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 15000 @ 0.00046534 = 6.9801 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 2300 @ 0.00046531 = 1.0702 BTC [-]
BTC-Mining: Especially with something as easy to avoid by simply not willingly deleting the data.
mircea_popescu: so, to fix your example : if a rain of meteors obliterates the nyse, and each and all scrap of trace of the existance, chain of custody and so forth of an asset
mircea_popescu: will you be surprised if your broker says, after a few years/a decade, "sorry" and moves on ?
BTC-Mining: After a decade, no.
mircea_popescu: right.
mircea_popescu: it's been 8 dividend periods.
mircea_popescu: that's close to a decade.
BTC-Mining: It hasn't been a decade however.
mircea_popescu: but this isn't an irl broker, however.
mircea_popescu: time moves at a different pace here, as proven by the fact dividends are not paid yearly.
BTC-Mining: If no trace are found of records and it's obvious they were destroyed, I would not mind that my broker moves on and asks the same of me. But this is not the case.
BTC-Mining: Time does not move at a different pace?
mircea_popescu: now, i haven't DONE THIS FIRST, but announced it with ample time in advance exactly so as to have the opportunity for this sort of conversation
BTC-Mining: Dividends are paid more often simply because Bitcoins (and bitcoin mining) allows income and sharing of it much faster without all the financial fees to send those funds around. Not because time magically paces faster around Bitcoins.
mircea_popescu: again, cognitive dissonance 101 ?
mircea_popescu: things happen faster but they don't happen faster ?
mircea_popescu: well, why not ?
BTC-Mining: The dividends happen faster. Time does not move faster. They are different things.
mircea_popescu: your irl broker will move on after 10 dividend periods, aka a decade irl. mpex moves on after 10 dividend periods, aka 2 months irl.
mircea_popescu: seems rather reasonable.
BTC-Mining: I would attribute the frequent dividend to the nature of Bitcoins. They allow it for not being as slow and not requiring such wire fees for sending funds. Plus the small nature of operations can also manage to pay more often.
mircea_popescu: right.
mircea_popescu: but the asset has in fact already missed something like 5 or 6 dividend payments, correct ?
BTC-Mining: The time my IRL broker moves on is not based on dividend periods, it's based on leaving time for the recovery of record. That dividends are paid every day or every 10 years matters not.
mircea_popescu: well, why not ?
mircea_popescu: if "allows income and sharing of it much faster" that'd seem on the face that it... allows... things...moving...faster.
mircea_popescu: why should just some things move faster ?
BTC-Mining: Because why would he wait before moving on? For data recovery if possible. If not possible, move on.
mircea_popescu: right.
mircea_popescu: so you are literally telling me that it takes two months to do a couple sql queries on nefario's end ?
BTC-Mining: Data recovery is completly unrelated and independant of payment periods.
mircea_popescu: it's not like he has to dig out records from a 5mn folders pile of paper.
mircea_popescu: no, it's not lol
mircea_popescu: since the very reason you gave for faster payment periods was ease of handling the data
BTC-Mining: Well who's to say because it is easy and faster, it will be done so? You could pay out on S.MPOE daily or weekly, but you do not.
mircea_popescu: no, i do not. i think the weekly thing is unconscionable.
mircea_popescu: but that's really besides the point isn't it ?
BTC-Mining: Not really.
mircea_popescu: how so ?
BTC-Mining: I claim payment period can possibly be more frequent, but not obligated. I want to know why, because of these faster periods (completly unrelated and optional), you feel it's ok to move on and delete all data just as much faster, without any knowledge of what's happening on Nefario's side?
mircea_popescu: but do you actually claim that objectively the time needed to retrieve the data is in the months rather than minutes scale ?
BTC-Mining: No
mircea_popescu: ok. so then what is your idea here ?
mircea_popescu: that more time could conceivably helpand thus is a right ?
mircea_popescu: nefario could in fact have released all the data in question in half the time we took discussing his idiocy so far.
mircea_popescu: just in this present bout.
BTC-Mining: But he seemed quite concerned of the legalities when he closed. He didn't run away with all the funds. He did take time to start processing. He's probably still concerned.
mircea_popescu: so ?!
BTC-Mining: So he could be checking further how to minimize his liabilities.
mircea_popescu: after the fact ?
BTC-Mining: Decide to require AML again for disclosing assets, or anything really.
BTC-Mining: Yes, after the fact.
mircea_popescu: i still don't see how any of this makes any sense or amounts to an actual challenge
mircea_popescu: i mean... maybe he decides to give us all candy, in the future. it's possible, why not.
mircea_popescu: but that aside : a catastrophe has occured
mircea_popescu: even though this was not specifically written out in thecontract, a set interval of time will be allowed for recovery
mircea_popescu: after which that's that.
mircea_popescu: do you see a problem in principle with this ?
BTC-Mining: If you don't know the facts, he claims to have asked the FSA about it long ago but they claimed not to be concerned by anything Bitcoins related. (Probably miscommunication). Trying to go legal, he consulted again and was told to stop or he could be charged.
mircea_popescu: you know this as a fact ?
BTC-Mining: I'll have to fetch the sources, but it seems likely. Seems to be what GLBSE shareholders claim.
mircea_popescu: well does it seem likely or wtf.
mircea_popescu: half the glbse shareholders are pretty much lieing scumbags, as it came out.
mircea_popescu: i thought you were all against mixing fact and fiction.
BTC-Mining: Hmm, yes. But fact is, if it's indeed true, he could limit his liabilities by applying regulations after he's been made aware of it, and would certainly get him to delay things a lot while consulting.
kuzetsa: mircea_popescu: the glbse flaming and whatnot... don't you have ties to a competing exchange? as such, isn'
mircea_popescu: look, i have in fact hired lawyers in this life, i'm not talking out of imagination.
mircea_popescu: NEVER have i waited A MONTH for a fucking report.
kuzetsa: isn't FUD surrounding GLBSE good for your business?
mircea_popescu: maybe a couple of weeks, if it was REALLY involved and complex and needed loads of research
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 1131 @ 0.00046045 = 0.5208 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 27700 @ 0.00046037 = 12.7522 BTC [-]
BTC-Mining: I'm against opinion passing as facts, or misquoting.
mircea_popescu: kuzetsa i own the exchange glbse was trying to compete with.
kuzetsa: uh huh
BTC-Mining: But Nefario seems to only be able to aford some lousy lawyer.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining ok, but let's get back on track here.
BTC-Mining: If Nefario is screwing things up or being slow, it wouldn't excuse you from doing just as much in return. Plus it opens you to accusations. You should keep the data for at least more than 2 months is what I am saying.
mircea_popescu: well so i said it's kept a month, you want it to be kept two. am i correct in inferring that at least in principle you don't see a problem, and you mostly dispute the actual time interval ?
BTC-Mining: No, after the 1st December, you'll have kept it for more than 2 months.
mircea_popescu: huh ?
BTC-Mining: hmm... 2 months actually
BTC-Mining: Since the day GLBSE went down.
mircea_popescu: how do we count that ? was it oct 1st ? or with goat ? or with yest when it finally went offline ?
BTC-Mining: And yes, I dispute the time interval. Your argument so far was that if payment periods go faster, why not the time allowed to disclose the information before considering it gone for good? But you yourself agreed that the two were unrelated.
BTC-Mining: I do not dispute the delisting, nor the need to eventually move on.
mircea_popescu: so for clarity, you agree with the principle, but disagree with the interval ?
mircea_popescu: kay.
mircea_popescu: well... so what's the rationale for your interval ?
sgornick: > mircea_popescu wonders if everyone else is alseep/sexting/busy not giving a shit or quite the contrary,
mircea_popescu: o hai sgornick
mircea_popescu: how much is it ?
sgornick: about two satoshis.
mircea_popescu: address ? :p
kakobrekla: hey, thats my fee.
BTC-Mining: 8/60th of minimum salary in whatever area he is located.
BTC-Mining: minimum hourly salary*
kuzetsa: ;;gpg info sgornick
gribble: User 'sgornick', with keyid F64A32C07327B2F8, fingerprint 1619E0F30A0AE945C3A5407EF64A32C07327B2F8, and bitcoin address 1ADZYhYZu1epmsZUAUa2fZ299p7xwVJ46k, registered on Mon Mar 7 00:42:20 2011. http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=sgornick . Currently not authenticated.
kuzetsa: mircea_popescu: probably that one :P
mircea_popescu: maybe he wants satoshi pairs sent to special mating addresses where they can multiply, what do i know.
kuzetsa: heh
smickles: BTC-Mining: "... He didn't run away with all the funds. ..." << um actually you can't quite say this, only 2 of my 3 accounts received btc back
BTC-Mining: He didn't run away with >>ALL<< the funds
smickles: heh, he did from the perspective of those accounts </troll>
smickles: and i put that backward
smickles: 1 of 3 got btc back
mircea_popescu: smickles in the end it seems he paid ~1.3k or so
BTC-Mining: So you could expect he actually intends to refund everyone. Wether he can or screw up doing so however, is uncertain, since there's already a screw up.
mircea_popescu: originally i was thinking he just paid theymos' funds
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining i still don't understand why would he not have issued the assets, if he's gonna do it.
mircea_popescu: i mean, at first few days cause it might take some time to recombobulate the data
mircea_popescu: then cause he was holding theymos hostage for btc
mircea_popescu: now ?
BTC-Mining: mircea, 1.3k is just what was claimed by people on the forum. Most probably never claimed their payment on my thread, or were even aware of it or willing to disclose how much they had on it.
smickles: is there news about the asset info?
mircea_popescu: smickles none
BTC-Mining: People like to be private around Bitcoins it seems.
BTC-Mining: Mircea, the rationale behind the interval is that with how things have been going, it is not clear or obvious that Nefario lost any data or intends not to return it. And being highly unpredictable and uncommunicative since the start, one could expect the information to be released way past the short delay you seem to allow.
smickles: what am I going to do with all this btc if i don't get infos
mircea_popescu: this is mostly cause i announced that giga.etf goes away on dec 1st if it's not fixed
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining yes, but in order to have a deadline you have to have a deadline
BTC-Mining: But why one month away?
mircea_popescu: so what's your proposed deadline and why ?
mircea_popescu: well, i honestly went 10x dividend periods
mircea_popescu: seemed to me the most reasonable approach.
smickles: yeah, what's the reasonable amount of time that I have to secure and maintain this btc?
smickles: it's not like i'm getting paid to do it
mircea_popescu: smickles it's a quite important problem.
mircea_popescu: which is why i think this discussion matters.
mircea_popescu: i mean, FOREVER is off the table. now, how long is reasonable ?
sgornick: Wait, did the giga.ETF manager obtain the gigamining shares through GLBSE, or direct from gigamiing?
smickles: is there any legal position to be informed by?
mircea_popescu: smickles not really.
mircea_popescu: sgornick i originally had them directly, but then all pre-ipo holdings were transformed into glbse shares
BTC-Mining: I'd say at least 6 months without any news or sight whatsoever of Nefario. Considering it's assets information, it's still very short, but at least more appropriate.
smickles: bad move, in hind sight mircea_popescu
mircea_popescu: smickles i didn't want to do it, i asked at the time to keep it private, but eventually didn't want to cause trouble.
smickles: 6 months and then what BTC-Mining ?
mircea_popescu: after all, "fud" it was called, right ?
smickles: fud, lovely
BTC-Mining: He'll delete all data regarding what is owed.
mircea_popescu: 6 months "without sight" ? what if the bloke pulls a strateman, drops by every season on btctalk to post a trollface ?
smickles: thing is, Uncertainty and Doubt are good things
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining i can't delete "all data" man. the signed stats will forever exist.
BTC-Mining: Aye
mircea_popescu: we're not talking glbse here.
mircea_popescu: anyone can keep the stat saying "x F.GIGA" for as long as they think it's worth it.
BTC-Mining: But you won't keep your side of the data or honor anything, am I right?
BTC-Mining: or will you?
mircea_popescu: it won't show in your stats anymore.
mircea_popescu: it will still exist in my backups, obviouysly
mircea_popescu: (as well as in your backups, if you're downloading the mpex backups with any frequency)
BTC-Mining: So you're actually going to keep the data?
mircea_popescu: depends what that means ;/
mircea_popescu: it will not be in the active db.
BTC-Mining: Will you honor the most recent data available as of who owns what of the ETF should the information be disclosed and you get access to the funds received through it?
BTC-Mining: I guess would be were I'm getting at.
smickles: 30 years later?
mircea_popescu: lol srsly.
smickles: ;P
BTC-Mining: Yes.
mircea_popescu: nope.
smickles: BTC-Mining: you expect the data to be kept for 30 years?
mircea_popescu: didn't you just say above you understand there will have to be some limit ?!
BTC-Mining: I wasn't answering to smickles... in hindsight, I was answering the "lol, srsly", but it was probably destined to smickles.
smickles: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/unclaimedabout.htm
mircea_popescu: no but in general, people will have to start reading up on write-offs.
BTC-Mining: I don't expect 30 years. I'm just asking, suppose the data is released in the next few months, would you honor the most recent information?
mircea_popescu: this notion that they hang on the hope of pirate repaying 30 years later...
mircea_popescu: this is cargo cult not finance.
mircea_popescu: if those next few months are november, then absolutely.
BTC-Mining: But pirate was an obvious ponzi, still is, and he just disappeared suddenly one day and stopped paying people.
mircea_popescu: no he didn't
mircea_popescu: he kept pulling people's chains FOR MONTHS
mircea_popescu: and it was "an obvious ponzi" pretty much to three people iirc.
mircea_popescu: but we digress
BTC-Mining: Sorry. The business stopped paying suddenly one day.
mircea_popescu: http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/nq508ed4f8.jpg this is aptly named "ocean city"
BTC-Mining: All I'm saying is, 1 month is not reasonable delays.
mircea_popescu: 2.
thestringpuller: smickles: ;;ident
BTC-Mining: 1 month before delisting, 6 before deleting the data you hold, would be the minimum I find acceptable.
smickles: ;;ident
gribble: You are identified as user smickles, with GPG key id EA62D7CEB2450C3F, key fingerprint 96ACCA7C3B09EC61B0A6D7F9EA62D7CEB2450C3F, and bitcoin address 12NjnZTVeTJ3g5C7BqfS2aQ2rLkmwiqVz6
smickles: ;;ident thestringpuller
gribble: Nick 'thestringpuller', with hostmask 'thestringpuller!~leflor@99-39-98-185.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net', is identified as user thestringpuller, with GPG key id 0FF2943DA179E169, key fingerprint 6ACE36E786F39A4ADC4506DE0FF2943DA179E169, and bitcoin address None
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 8769 @ 0.00045982 = 4.0322 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 300 @ 0.00046489 = 0.1395 BTC [+]
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining based on what criteria ?
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 5400 @ 0.0004657 = 2.5148 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11631 @ 0.00046613 = 5.4216 BTC [+]
mircea_popescu: just pulled some numbers ?
BTC-Mining: Yes it's an opinion. Based on the fact Nefario has been unreliable and he doesn't have an history of completing task this fast. So I find it unreasonable to give a delay of 1 month.
mircea_popescu: man, but this subject can'tbe decided based on nefario. nefario is below a negligible quantity.
mircea_popescu: we need something workable in principle
mircea_popescu: you think we'll just change the terms based on each low-life that happens to blow this way ?
BTC-Mining: But there's none, because only Nefario can release the data. And he's unreliable.
smickles: I'm not going to base my obligation on the shortcomming of an asshat
BTC-Mining: Even if you're not at fault, professionalism would recommend you allow a long delay to account for that.
mircea_popescu: smickles in any event, i don't think escheat would be the controlling doctrine. more like treasure trove or somesuch
smickles: BTC-Mining: from what i'm reading, it seems that a resonable period of time may be between 1 and 3 years
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining i don't dispute, a long delay. why's 2 months not a long delay tho.
smickles: mircea_popescu: what about considering it lost
BTC-Mining: Because any individual, especially when dealing with them personnally, can often report to later for months to a few years before resolving the dispute or admitting he can't. And Nefario admitted he wouldn't accept any decision by GLBSE shareholder and would act however he wished to protect himself.
mircea_popescu: smickles needs more words
BTC-Mining: He made it obvious he would have priority, so long delays might be expected.
mircea_popescu: you keep refering to nefario as if he's relevant. i don't see why he is relevant at all.
BTC-Mining: If he had never sent out so many payment and just stopped business like Pirate did and just stayed around, I would not have minded the 1 month delay.
BTC-Mining: I already stated he's relevant because he's the only one holding the assets information and able to disclose it.
mircea_popescu: but the only way to quash this would be to show that a two month delay is not acceptable in principle.
smickles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession would be an interesting way to handle it
mircea_popescu: showing that it's not convenient in this particular case isn't much.
mircea_popescu: smickles afaik that's always been limited to real property.
smickles: yeah
mircea_popescu: there's no adverse posession of chattels
BTC-Mining: Delays for data recovery can never be determined exactly. I don't see why it would require to be proven to be acceptable or not.
mircea_popescu: i mean, BTC-Mining : i received recently a request from neustar to prove that indeed i am entitled to hold a .us domain
mircea_popescu: the time interval offered was 10 days.
BTC-Mining: Yes, so?
smickles: oh shit
smickles: involuntary bailee
smickles: An exception to all the above is the case of an involuntary bailee, one who by not intentional acts is made a bailee. For example, if one is given a stock certificate but it turns out to be the wrong certificate (intended for someone else), he is an unintentional bailee, he has made no intentional act to become a bailee. He is therefore entitled to divest himself of the certificate regardless of a duty of care, so long as he does no malicious or
mircea_popescu: smickles ofcourse. but we're trying to avoid this.
mircea_popescu: there's no dispute that in law i can drop the entire thing on oct the 5th.
mircea_popescu: you too, and anyone else involved.
BTC-Mining: Why?
BTC-Mining: And does that automatically make that delay appropriate for everything? (the 10 days thing)
smickles: BTC-Mining: seems to be statutory in common law
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining because you can't force somebody to hold something for you at their expense ?
smickles: with no precedent overriding it
BTC-Mining: But that's the thing, you were not forced to held these for us and would gain a huge financial benefit if the information is disclosed after you deleted the data.
mircea_popescu: what benefit is that ?
BTC-Mining: You're not an unintentional bailee.
BTC-Mining: Financial benefit? You are now in possession of ~1000 Gigamining bonds with no data of who held the ETF or intention to honor it.
mircea_popescu: nope ?
BTC-Mining: How so?
mircea_popescu: i have (indirect) claims on about 1k (more like 1.1 iirc) of gigaminign shares.
BTC-Mining: Aye, so?
mircea_popescu: if i had 1k bonds this discussion wouldn't exist, i'd be paying dividends on them lol.
BTC-Mining: You don't have them now, no... That's not what I said either.
mircea_popescu: You are now in possession of ~1000 Gigamining bonds <<
mircea_popescu: but anyway.
BTC-Mining: I said if information was released after December 1st, you'd now be in possession of those bonds.
mircea_popescu: o i see
BTC-Mining: Because you would have deleted all data with no intent to further honor it, it stands as a financial gain. Gigavps keeps track of what is due and would start paying out all missed payments.
mircea_popescu: nah, im not going to realise that gain.
BTC-Mining: No, but that won't be verifiable.
smickles: not forced to hold? i giving it all back and nefario stopped that and sent the btc back to me :/
mircea_popescu: i guess if i end up with a windfall it'll just make some worthy cause rich.
mircea_popescu: i wonder who should get it this time, pdpc got it last time...
BTC-Mining: And since you were not forced to hold them for the ETF, I think that voids your right to be entitled to divest yourself of the certificate either.
mircea_popescu: huh ?
BTC-Mining: What smickles proposed about involuntary bailee.
mircea_popescu: wait a second.
smickles: i dunno that much about involuntary bailee, i'm just searching for any sort of similar thing to what's going on here
mircea_popescu: so, i made thing A. thing A is no longer. you want me to be the holder of substitute-thing B until such a time that you're satisfied.
mircea_popescu: this qualifies just fine.
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 4800 @ 0.00045984 = 2.2072 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 2600 @ 0.00045901 = 1.1934 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11300 @ 0.00045833 = 5.1791 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 16757 @ 0.00045799 = 7.6745 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 12368 @ 0.00045794 = 5.6638 BTC [-]
BTC-Mining: You're not even divesting from the Gigamining shares, you're destroying your own ETF, issued by you. Divesting requires departing yourself of the asset. But if information is disclosed, you will be in their possession. What you are destroying are the claims to them, which you are:
BTC-Mining: 1. Neither the holder
BTC-Mining: 2. Neither the involuntary holder
BTC-Mining: You own rights to Gigamining bonds (on your own will). I own claims to them.
mircea_popescu: let's see the whole line here.
smickles: BTC-Mining: involuntary bailee seems to say that if someone is in possesion of something that isn't theirs, and they came by this possesion unintintionally, then they are not responsible to the real owner for what happens to it
mircea_popescu: 1. giga made a mining thing ; 2. glbse listed the mining thing ; 3. i own shares in the glbse mining thing ; 4 i made a mpex thing ; 5 you own shares in the mpex thing.
mircea_popescu: this about right so far ?
BTC-Mining: He didn't get the shares unintentionally. He bought them to then sell fractional claims to them.
smickles: so the shares are his anyway then
smickles: the fractional claim is the question?
BTC-Mining: He's not an unintentional holder is what I'm saying.
smickles: it's force majeure
smickles: overwhelming force has voided the f.giga contract
smickles: voided or posponed i guess
BTC-Mining: No
smickles: how is it not?
mircea_popescu: no but srsly, let us get to the bottom of this, ok ?
BTC-Mining: He has no such clauses or anything reserving himself the right to arbitrarily and unilaterally void the claims he sold himself.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining you dispute the scheme laid out above ?
BTC-Mining: I do not.
mircea_popescu: ok.
mircea_popescu: now, in the event 2 dissapears,
BTC-Mining: Except for part 3
mircea_popescu: well ?
BTC-Mining: You own shares in the mining thing, not the glbse mining thing.
mircea_popescu: nope, i own shares in the glbse miningthing
mircea_popescu: ie, GIGAMINING shares
BTC-Mining: You own Gigamining shares, issued and traded on GLBSE, but not "GLBSE's mining thing"
mircea_popescu: again, if i had off-glbse private bonds this entire discussion would be moot.
BTC-Mining: Indeed...
mircea_popescu: well, let it be on record that what i mean by "GLBSE's mining thing" is Gigamining shares, issued and traded on GLBSE
mircea_popescu: moving right along.
BTC-Mining: Perfect then
mircea_popescu: once 2 goes away, you propose that it is my obligation to create a 2' vehicle to bridge this gap.
mircea_popescu: i might extend something like this as a courtesy, and for a limited time
mircea_popescu: in law i'm perfectly allowed to not do it at all (hence the discussion of involuntary bailee, you purport to make me the depositor of a 2' device which i never should have to hold)
mircea_popescu: but even if i forfeit this entitlement, i can only do it in a time-limited way
mircea_popescu: i can't accept eternal burden of any-and-all 2'
mircea_popescu: that could or may be conceived.
smickles: this is a facinating issue to me :)
mircea_popescu: it is a pretty important point for btc in general, which is why i'm taking the time
mircea_popescu: conveniently BTC-Mining is taking the other side, i'm not sure i'd prefer anyone else for it.
BTC-Mining: You are not an unvoluntary bailee. You received the assets of your own will and held them of your own will for the purpose of selling claims to it. You never received them against your will. In fact, they're currently TAKEN AWAY from you against your own will. Not forced upon you.
mircea_popescu: yes, the assets.
smickles: BTC-Mining: didn't you claim to have bought a bunch of f.giga when glbse went down?
mircea_popescu: but not some-other-thing-which-aren't-the-assets.
BTC-Mining: How are you the unvoluntary bailee of those other things?
smickles: wait, do we really consider having stuff associated with your glbse account ownership? (maybe off topic)
BTC-Mining: Aka, the giga.etf
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining because the vehicle for my ownership was the glbse share
mircea_popescu: which now is no more.
mircea_popescu: it has in practice been replaced by a vague sort of claim thing.
BTC-Mining: The claims were sold to me. I'm the current holder. You are not. You are the issuer. You cannot be the unvoluntary bailee of your own issue.
smickles: alology:
smickles: mircea_popescu leased an office in a building, the building is taken out by a tornado
smickles: (leased to someone else)
smickles: is mircea_popescu still responsible to provide an office to that person?
smickles: assumes there was not a force majeure clause in the lease
mircea_popescu: smickles no, it's more complicated. person A leases a building to person B. person B leases office space to C. person A is arrested and the building confiscated. C demands from B that B ensures C gets the office space at a future time if the building is returned to A.
mircea_popescu: this makes B the involuntary bailee of C's claim, because B never leased to C any such thing as "future claims to the office space conditional on A's performance in court"
mircea_popescu: while C may be entitled to that claim, it's really not much of B's business.
smickles: hmm
BTC-Mining: No. B indeed (re)leased office space to C.
BTC-Mining: To be the involuntary bailee, you'd have to be holding the claim from C to A. Where you could throw out the claim or quite simply give it to it's actual beneficiary.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining there's no limitation that you can only be ib if you can divest in a manner convenient to all partsi nvolved
mircea_popescu: quite the contrary.
mircea_popescu: anyway, even the example as given is simplified, because it gonflates giga and glbse into A.
BTC-Mining: Yes. Indeed.
mircea_popescu: and at any rate the whole involuntary bailee point is mostly academic, it just rehashes the obvious "tough tits" line
mircea_popescu: we only got into that cause smickles brought it up, but otherwise, the point is more along the lines of,
mircea_popescu: some time limit will have to be enforced. why this rather than that ?
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11000 @ 0.00045794 = 5.0373 BTC [-]
BTC-Mining: Because it's perfectably expectable for information to be released in more than a month, while it is not in 10 years without any news.
mircea_popescu: in principle the same could be said of 10 years vs 1000 years.
BTC-Mining: Why?
mircea_popescu: cause it's purely arbitrary. yes, the chances to get something decrease with time. so, if nothing happens in one week, better wait a month.
mircea_popescu: if nothing happens in am onth, better wait two. if nothing happens in two better wait six
mircea_popescu: etc.
smickles: mircea_popescu: lets do this logically, you made the first positive claim right?
mircea_popescu: still doesn't indicate why six months is more reasonable than six weeks
mircea_popescu: smickles what i indicated was 10 dividend periods.
mircea_popescu: i don't claim it's perfect or anything, should carry the day
smickles: then BTC-Mining contested, right
mircea_popescu: i just didn't hear anything more reasonable.
mircea_popescu: smickles well we agreed on principle but not on the actual interval so far.
smickles: so how do you justify 10 difidend periods?
BTC-Mining: In 10 years, odds of data remaining gets slight, especially as the storage on which the data was is probably destroyed and unless some guy (who never gave news or disclosed this date), kept moving it to new storage as time went by, the data would be lost. Which is expectable and probable. Why would the guy keep to back it up if he's not disclosing it?
mircea_popescu: smickles degree of magnitute more than the smallest contractual breach
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining yes, they will be slight, by today's measure. cause today the scent is still fresh. but in 9 years it will seem reasonable to wait 100 rather than 10.
smickles: BTC-Mining: do you contest this 'order of magnitude' argument?
mircea_popescu: why'd he have to contest it
smickles: logic
mircea_popescu: that's kinda absurd, we'll never be done if we go that way
BTC-Mining: No. Because it has to be set as a hard limit.
mircea_popescu: we just contest ad infinitum
BTC-Mining: But by today's standard.
mircea_popescu: more constructively, do you have something better than that, i'd want to know
BTC-Mining: Not by reviewing them later as: "Well we went on waiting 10 years, why not 100?"
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining but that's exactly what we're doing today.
BTC-Mining: And 1 month does not seems appropriate.
BTC-Mining: I'm contesting that.
mircea_popescu: we waited a month, and you are saying "well we should wait six cause this guy is slow"
smickles: mircea_popescu: you'd only do it back to first principles, not ad infinitum
smickles: and if you disagree on first principles, one of you is a turnip
mircea_popescu: lol
BTC-Mining: I'm not contesting it 1 month after. I'm contesting the fact you chose 1 month from day 1.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining sorry what ?
BTC-Mining: "[23:25] <mircea_popescu> we waited a month, and you are saying "well we should wait six cause this guy is slow""
mircea_popescu: right.
BTC-Mining: We didn't wait a month, that's the thing.
copumpkin: mod6: http://www.businessinsider.com/top-25-richest-hedge-funds-2012-1
mircea_popescu: what did we do ?
mircea_popescu: copumpkin o wow, tyggr ?!
copumpkin: lol
BTC-Mining: GLBSE.com went offline. You decided to, right now, allow 1 month.
copumpkin: little did you know that Chaang-Noi was a hedge fund manager
BTC-Mining: I'm contesting that this decision is appropriate for right now.
BTC-Mining: And not contesting afterward saying we should wait more.
mircea_popescu: but see, glbse.com going offline is really the absolute last signal of dissapearance.
mircea_popescu: nefario went silent, before this. their board broke apart.
mircea_popescu: the guy got a scammer tag for chrissakes
BTC-Mining: I would have no problem accepting it if I had agreed the delay was reasonable, and waited the whole of that delay.
mircea_popescu: this was the last ditch of credibility left.
mircea_popescu: what's left now ?
BTC-Mining: He got a scammer tag because Theymos was a shareholder and got screwed in this because Nefario doesn't recognize their decisive power because he claims he can't honor requests that would make him break the law.
mircea_popescu: man, forget the because. look at things objectively.
BTC-Mining: I does not prevents him from disclosing the information.
mircea_popescu: is the guy here defending himself ? no, he's not. is the company still standing ? no, it was dissolved (retroactively).
mircea_popescu: is his reputation in good standing ? no, it's not.
mircea_popescu: is the website online ? neither.
mircea_popescu: what is left to hang hope on ?
BTC-Mining: Eh, I thought so too. 1 month is just a token period. You'd erase the data right away if it wouldn't raise protest. You already consider it gone.
mircea_popescu: i wouldn't erase the data right away on general principle.
mircea_popescu: and afaik at least one glbse failure was already resolved, without protest for that matter.
mircea_popescu: copumpkin paulson in 2nd place, that must have gone over well
BTC-Mining: So why not have a more reasonable delay, on general principal. Balances have been partially paid out. Nefario communicated with the shareholder his intent to not act upon their vote if it was not lawful to do so.
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: cause he fucked up so badly? :P
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining the sticking point is the reasonable part of more reasonable.
copumpkin: oh well, he's rich, doesn't care
BTC-Mining: You're treating it like every other Bitcoin scam with the equivalent delays before declaring it lost.
mircea_popescu: copumpkin o he cares.
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: monopoly?
mircea_popescu: nah im about to call it a night soon
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining ask copumpkin, i was pushing for pirate write-offs in august.
mircea_popescu: not that anyone listened then or anything.
copumpkin: oh mircea_popescu was pushing!
copumpkin: oh well :)
mircea_popescu: people seem more religious than business-oriented in btc.
mircea_popescu: teh saviour shall come sort of outlook
copumpkin: I wonder what he's doing with all the money
copumpkin: not that he got any out of me
mircea_popescu: messiah ?
BTC-Mining: So was I. I could almost have expected to write it off almost right away.
BTC-Mining: But to my surprise, balances actually started to be paid.
mircea_popescu: you mean pirate ?!
BTC-Mining: No, GLBSE.
mircea_popescu: o you mean enfario ya
mircea_popescu: yes man, which is why we weren't having this conversation on the 15th
mircea_popescu: but i stil lfail to see how the whole month of november is an unreasonable allowance to fucking pull some fields from a db and send them to peopkle
BTC-Mining: So on that account, I think delays should be set as such to allow the benefit of doubt that Nefario intends to repay.
mircea_popescu: i thought they are ;/
BTC-Mining: Because Nefario DOES NOT WANT to simply pull the database's fields and send that.
mircea_popescu: for instance patrickharnett is getting axed tomorrow on the dot.
mircea_popescu: o, he doesn't want to does he ?
mircea_popescu: and you figure this matters ?
BTC-Mining: Yes.
mircea_popescu: well, i don't. why do i care what someone wants ?
mircea_popescu: what is this, college ?
mircea_popescu: lol
mircea_popescu: you would, too.
copumpkin: nah, I actually didn't join a frat in college
copumpkin: thought all that drinking was kind of stupid
mircea_popescu: it sure is.
copumpkin: I don't mind moderate amounts of it, but doing it for its own sake is silly
BTC-Mining: You're unilaterally taking a decision to void claims because Nefario does not release information fast enough for you, regardless of it it will be released or not.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining yes, that's the principle of the thing. when someone says they do something and then they don't do it, they get some time before being cut off
mircea_popescu: regardless if they "will" do it or not.
mircea_popescu: foreclosure works the same exact way, for instance.
BTC-Mining: Yes, but the delays should be set accordingly to the expected time it will take them to do so, and you usually add an extra on that in case.
mircea_popescu: the expected time to pull data from db is 5 minutes.
mircea_popescu: 1 + 1 months > 5 minutes
mircea_popescu: problem ?
BTC-Mining: That's the thing. You'd be disregarding all possible laws Nefario might want to comply to by selecting that 5 minute delay.
mircea_popescu: that 5 minute delay is how long it takes to do it.
mircea_popescu: you know, like if you don't make the mortgage payments cause your cat was sick
mircea_popescu: the bank would still fuck you.
BTC-Mining: It's how long it takes to retrieve it from the database. Not how long it takes to disclose it for some paranoid fuck who just started consulting a lawyer.
BTC-Mining: And now wants to close it legally.
mircea_popescu: dude... there's no doctrine of "how long it takes some mentally retarded guy to pay the bill"
mircea_popescu: it's how long the thing takes, not how long the thing takes nefario.
smickles: 03:42 < BTC-Mining> Yes, but the delays should be set accordingly to the expected time it will take them to do so, and you usually add an extra on that in case. << the expecte time for him to release the shareholder info should've been about a week
copumpkin: if he's bound by laws, he can tell us what those laws are, at least
copumpkin: you can't cite unknowable lawyerspeak
copumpkin: as an excuse
copumpkin: and it can't just be "the law"
copumpkin: since that just looks like shitty excuses for not getting your shit done
mircea_popescu: copumpkin fwiw, i contacted his theoretical lawyer about two weeks ago.
mircea_popescu: no reply.
smickles: copumpkin: but it's santa cLAWs
copumpkin: lol
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: sounds legit
mircea_popescu: i mean... all this isn't for lack of trying
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 28000 @ 0.00045797 = 12.8232 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 17632 @ 0.00045794 = 8.0744 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 4668 @ 0.00045764 = 2.1363 BTC [-]
mircea_popescu: it's for lack of absolutely any reasonable alternative.
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: reminds me of this email I got this morning: http://snapplr.com/rv62
BTC-Mining: The expected time it will take, not in as fast you could do it, but how fast it could be expected to be done according to how it's been said it's going to be done.
mircea_popescu: dear, sounds legit.
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: omg, that's exactly what I said
copumpkin: great minds
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining no such license eh. for one, how it was said it was going to be done is "instant". check out the guy's presentations at his nonference
BTC-Mining: That's not what he claimed when closing GLBSE.
mircea_popescu: at any rate find me some place nefario says "and btw, if glbse goes down i will take ~6 months to release infos" on or around april 11, 2012
mircea_popescu: dude, what he claimed in october has no bearing on some instrument made in april does it.
smickles: mircea_popescu: april 1, 2012
BTC-Mining: Nowhere does he states how much time he will take to do it. Just that he's suddenly very concerned by a few regulations.
smickles: april fools day
mircea_popescu: twas 11
smickles: @.@
smickles: i'm sure it's april fools day even if it was the 11th
mircea_popescu: lol
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining why do you think it matters what nefario said after the giga.etf thing was made ?
BTC-Mining: Because he has the damn information to release and you have the claims to the shares I have claims to.
mircea_popescu: so listen, if i run a payday loan service, and i lend some guy 50 bucks for a week
smickles: mircea_popescu: have you asked gigga if he'll honor your shares for the etf?
mircea_popescu: and his employer announces that next salary will be paid in 2050
mircea_popescu: i have to extend my loan to 2050 ?
mircea_popescu: smickles i won't ask such a thing, it's absurd.
BTC-Mining: No. Because that's 40 years. It's unreasonable.
mircea_popescu: 2015 ?
BTC-Mining: I'd accept 6 month as a minimum.
smickles: and without a declared timeframe from nefario, i'm starting to think that we can't reasonably expect to get the data in a reasonable amount of time
mircea_popescu: ahah you and your 6 months
mircea_popescu: i wouldn't accept one day. a week's a week. fuck you, pay me.
BTC-Mining: Let me try to explain it from my point of view.
smickles: mircea_popescu: go to missouri eviction legal with one day of default
mircea_popescu: smickles if he had the common courtesy to say you know, on oct 1, we are closed, i expect to pay everyone by the end of this week and release data by the end of the month cause so and so problems
mircea_popescu: and then BLEW both dates
mircea_popescu: i'd still be waiting for him.
smickles: mircea_popescu: yeah, but releasing the data by the end of the month is unreasonably long, unless he could point to a specific detail (law) which prevented him from doing so in that time frame
mircea_popescu: smickles but at least it'd be you know... he said by today, it's not done yet... well let's give it a little and see
mircea_popescu: it'd be... something.
smickles: i have no patients for giving people a little more time
smickles: they take my spelling away from me
mircea_popescu: haha.
mircea_popescu: btw copumpkin have you noticed the "refards" signature in that email ?
mircea_popescu: originally i read "retards"
copumpkin: yeah, there are lots of typos
copumpkin: lol
copumpkin: I didn't see that
BTC-Mining: What that 1 month tells me is because Nefario completly fucked up, although you know about it and although you know he further screwed on the 16th and you know he's never been quite good at PR, because it could be done in 5 minutes by you (which you know won't happen) or that he might never disclose it (again, a possibility, not an absolute), you can't be assed to extend the courtesy
BTC-Mining: of not pressing "delete" on all the data for the ETF's for your customers' sake.
mircea_popescu: this is such complete misrepresentation.
mircea_popescu: since for instance i announced the exact time, what's to keep customers from just saving a stat ?
smickles: BTC-Mining: i've lost too high a % of my net worth by extending people courtesies to continue the practice
BTC-Mining: You said YOURSELF you won't honor the statements if the information is released after December 1st.
smickles: < mircea_popescu> since for instance i announced the exact time, what's to keep customers from just saving a stat ?
smickles: +
BTC-Mining: What good would prior notice and saving the statement do?
smickles: doesn't that imply he'll honor them before dec 1?
smickles: just STAT b/f dec 1
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining it at the very least changes the customer's position not one bit.
smickles: save it, send it off to amazon glacier
mircea_popescu: you were talking about "data being deleted". a customer wanting to push a claim would be in no worse position today, on the 5th of december 2012 or 2015
BTC-Mining: So?
mircea_popescu: so at the very least under the guise of protecting your interest you're trying to tell me how to sort my files lol
mircea_popescu: which is hardly something you should be involved in ?!
mircea_popescu: there's two different things here, do you realise this ? your ability to prove that you owed X shares of Y is never going away. that's why you get stats.
mircea_popescu: (and that's why the mpex system is so good, incidentally)
BTC-Mining: It WOULD be good if you didn't keep any profit from that decision from GIGAMINING shares and donated it to a charitable cause.
BTC-Mining: It WOULD be good if you told Gigavps you were writing them off and we could give him those signed statements
smickles: BTC-Mining: i bet, that presenting a stat after info is released would get your benefit back
smickles: .2btc BTC-Mining ?
smickles: even odds?
mircea_popescu: well or alternatively he could "sue" me on injust enrichment or w/e
smickles: 1:2?
BTC-Mining: No, Mircea clearly stated it would not give my benefit back.
BTC-Mining: After December 1st, if assets information is released, he won't honor any statements.
BTC-Mining: He'll just donate the proceeds.
smickles: i took that to mean a stat made after dec 1
smickles: "my bad" i suppose
BTC-Mining: After december 1, no STAT will include any ETF holding because data will have been removed...
mircea_popescu: right.
BTC-Mining: so it will not be possible.
smickles: no
smickles: it will, just STAT b/f dec 1
smickles: and keep it
smickles: it's a signed receipt
smickles: one local, one local bacup, one offsite backup
smickles: burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion
smickles: (i.e. in this situation, the f.giga holder)
BTC-Mining: but that's the thing, Mircea said he would not accept any signed statement or backup of his database if asset information is disclosed after December 1st (from GLBSE part)
BTC-Mining: Not about statments from MPEx coming after december 1st because there would be none.
BTC-Mining: (Info about the ETF)
mircea_popescu: actually what it says is "held discarded as worthless"
smickles: yeah, well, i'm inclined to agree with that course of action myself :
mircea_popescu: "shares held discarded as worthless"
mircea_popescu: it specifically does not say what happens if they even later prove to have been mistakenly discarded as worthless (as in, are worth something).
mircea_popescu: but as explained above, this does not actually degrade anyone's ability to prove that they did own them at some point.
BTC-Mining: But what good would that do to be able to prove you owned them at some point?
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 26000 @ 0.00045764 = 11.8986 BTC [-]
mircea_popescu: now how would i know that ?
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 40699 @ 0.00046007 = 18.7244 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 22700 @ 0.00046017 = 10.4459 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 53175 @ 0.00046137 = 24.5333 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 12469 @ 0.00046613 = 5.8122 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 8239 @ 0.00046631 = 3.8419 BTC [+]
BTC-Mining: So the signed statements are pretty much... pointless, then.
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 25814 @ 0.00046695 = 12.0538 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 43500 @ 0.00047111 = 20.4933 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 8271 @ 0.00047152 = 3.8999 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 29917 @ 0.0004727 = 14.1418 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 6000 @ 0.000475 = 2.85 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11318 @ 0.00048 = 5.4326 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 28000 @ 0.00048021 = 13.4459 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 15864 @ 0.00048051 = 7.6228 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 3600 @ 0.00048135 = 1.7329 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 4644 @ 0.00048155 = 2.2363 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 27800 @ 0.00048252 = 13.4141 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 33300 @ 0.00048422 = 16.1245 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 9712 @ 0.0004874 = 4.7336 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 14978 @ 0.00048788 = 7.3075 BTC [+]
mircea_popescu: mmm
mircea_popescu: how do you judge ?
smickles: mircea_popescu: directly, if I had proof that i owned f.gigg.etf on dec 1, would you give me fair value of those shares at any point in the future if i relinquish my ownership of them?
BTC-Mining: Seriously, why do you even have them if you nor anyone else accepts them?
BTC-Mining: Okay, let's take it from another angle.
mircea_popescu: smickles i will (and always have) satisfy legitimate claims against myself.
mircea_popescu: now, it'll all come down to whether your claim is legitimate at thatp oint.
smickles: there you have it BTC-Mining
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining your rights are your rights man.
BTC-Mining: What?
mircea_popescu: they're not a function of someone else.
BTC-Mining: I'm really confused... can't you just say if you'll honor or not a valid claim to any shares?
mircea_popescu: no, cause it's a future question and i don't know the contingencies.
BTC-Mining: Ah, I see...
BTC-Mining: That kind of changes everything tho.
mircea_popescu: people were asking me, oh, what about upgrade to tera
mircea_popescu: and i had to stick to "all i'll do is pass along all that's passed to me"
BTC-Mining: I have two question then.
mircea_popescu: because i can't make future viewing statements on contingencies like that.
mircea_popescu: turns out i was responsible to do it, too, cause it prevented teh crisis from compounding to some degree.
BTC-Mining: Ok, so all signed statement has a CERTAIN claim value, but you won't pronounce yourself on that value until you know the facts regarding the future situation for such claims.
mircea_popescu: well yes.
mircea_popescu: and i fully appreciate it may seem insane or w/e, but the fact of the matter is we are involved in very complex transactions and the only way to do all this is to do it CORRECTLY
BTC-Mining: We could have stopped this conversation 2 hours ago if you simply and clearly stated it that way then...
mircea_popescu: or we might as well not even bother
BTC-Mining: Because that is PERFECTLY fine with me.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining lol we talked of this before, i have no way of knowing from the onset what exactly is the form that's clear to you
BTC-Mining: Even with 1 month delays or even 1 week delays would be fine with me then...
mircea_popescu: right.
mircea_popescu: well, i don't think it was wasted time, something tells me this discussion will form precedent for many later discussions.
mircea_popescu: possibly after we're all dead.
BTC-Mining: If you don't want to pronounce yourself on something with unkown variables, just state it.
BTC-Mining: I would then consider it fine.
mircea_popescu: lol you know i could say "if you only asked this two hours ago" just as well :p
BTC-Mining: I understood it as any signed statement by MPEx would never ever be accepted in any circumstance by MPEx.
BTC-Mining: I think I asked something like, would you honor a signed statement? Which you answered as "No"
BTC-Mining: But I guess you were answering to the litteral sense of my question...
BTC-Mining: [22:21] <BTC-Mining> Will you honor the most recent data available as of who owns what of the ETF should the information be disclosed and you get access to the funds received through it?
BTC-Mining: [22:21] <BTC-Mining> I guess would be were I'm getting at.
BTC-Mining: [22:22] <smickles> 30 years later?
BTC-Mining: [22:22] <mircea_popescu> lol srsly.
BTC-Mining: [22:22] <smickles> ;P
BTC-Mining: [22:22] <BTC-Mining> Yes.
BTC-Mining: [22:22] <mircea_popescu> nope.
BTC-Mining: I think that part 2 hours ago is where it happened...
mircea_popescu: but you said yes to smickle's 30 years and i said nope
BTC-Mining: No, I stated afterward I answered yes to your "lol srsly" as if it was an answer to my question.
BTC-Mining: I never addressed smickles or what he said at that point.
mircea_popescu: ya well i dropped that part so.
BTC-Mining: After that statement, I think it went unnanswered and we kind of dropped getting anything clear out of it =/
mircea_popescu: anyway, ima clean this and put it up for later.
BTC-Mining: Well, if you don't mind, I have 2 final question.
mircea_popescu: sure.
smickles: oh gawd, i'm going to be in one of your posts looking silly again arn't i?
BTC-Mining: Suppose your ETF has 1000 units. Someone has 900 shares and a signed statement from November the 29th. Someone has 100 units and 10 accounts, and 10 statement from the 30th of november for 100 units, one for each of those accounts.
BTC-Mining: You would need the most recent database backup to identify legitimate claims would you not?
BTC-Mining: The first person never sold his 900 units and the other transfered the units from one account to the other to get his 10 statements.
mircea_popescu: transfers have nothing to do with this tho.
smickles: i think something flew over your head
mircea_popescu: you for some reason seem to be mixing historical data with active data.
mircea_popescu: i'm not about to delete f.giga.etf entries from the historical records.
BTC-Mining: You're going to KEEP the trading data?
smickles: it's still a good idea to copy the db dump on dec 1
mircea_popescu: of course ?!
BTC-Mining: I understood it as you were going to delete ALL data...
mircea_popescu: ffs.
mircea_popescu: what, am i going to log into twitter and delete tweets ?
mircea_popescu: contact everyone on irc list to the right ask them to wipe selected lines from their logs ?
smickles: mircea_popescu: do be sure to include my witty remark if you can :)
mircea_popescu: lol
mod6: that was a looooong way to get a short distance
BTC-Mining: Mircea, but those twitter/IRC log does not contain who the shares are sent to.
BTC-Mining: and account transfers are not public
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining think for a moment, logically. in any possible implementation there'd be some dbs which hold records of what has happened. such as, who transfered what to whom, in sale or otherwise.
mircea_popescu: and also, some records that'd keep balances.
BTC-Mining: Yes
mircea_popescu: conceivably, one'd care to keep these later trimmed seeing how they're pounded possibly 1000s of times a second
mircea_popescu: one'd not give a shit about the former, and even keep most of them off the active db cause mpex doesn't need to review trade #5 at any point in november 2012
BTC-Mining: Aye
mircea_popescu: so then ?
smickles: mod6: LURCKER!
mircea_popescu: mod6 :p
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 7132 @ 0.00045764 = 3.2639 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 28200 @ 0.00045764 = 12.9054 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 5868 @ 0.00045762 = 2.6853 BTC [-]
mod6: haha, i was afk, then scrolled back. was thinking "didn't we just have this conversation an hour ago?!"
mircea_popescu: lol
mircea_popescu: yes, we were.
BTC-Mining: Aye, but that means signed "STAT" statements are not useful at all to prove ownership of anything at any point other than the moment it was created.
smickles: I know for a fackt that mircea_popescu has a cron job of rm -rf /home/user/mpex/db.sql
BTC-Mining: Meaning you need the actually trading statements to identify legitimate holders.
mircea_popescu: signed stats do exactly what they do : they show that at time X you had Y.
mircea_popescu: no more, no less. this is the most they could do, too.
BTC-Mining: So you would, theorically, need a database backup to be used in a claim. Signed "STAT" statements are not receivable.
mircea_popescu: what's not receivable mean ? they're not negotiable instruments, no.
mircea_popescu: but the chain of dispute is very simple and efficient. let me explain it.
mircea_popescu: I. Person complains about MPEx.
BTC-Mining: Not as in negociable instruments. Receivable has offering any proof of ownership later than the date it was issued.
mircea_popescu: either person has or has not a stat to back their complaint. if they do not, complaint is invalid.
BTC-Mining: Mircea: yes
mircea_popescu: II. MPEx reviews complaint. either it has or it has not ulterior transactions signed by person
mircea_popescu: if it does the complaint is invalid.
mircea_popescu: end of dispute.
mircea_popescu: there's no guessing involved in any of this.
smickles: wow, you have written policy, don't you, I've gone thru this exact proceeding
BTC-Mining: So you need to keep all transactions data for that, as proof we signed them at a later date.
mircea_popescu: smickles yes.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining yes.
BTC-Mining: And as such will keep the transactions data for the ETF.
mircea_popescu: the transaction (in general, the historical) data was never in discussion.
smickles: clever girl
BTC-Mining: When you said you'd delete ALL data for the ETF, I understood it as ALL the data. Including signed transactions...
mircea_popescu: i didn't say i delete all data lol. i said the shares are discarded as worthless
BTC-Mining: Wait... let me fetch the bit...
smickles: oh snap, mircea_popescu
mircea_popescu: wtf, delete signed orders create chaos. heck, why not, lets have fun
smickles: \o\
mircea_popescu: lol whazzat smickles ?
smickles: he's going to quote you saying something
mircea_popescu: no harm in that eh
smickles: 02:18 < mircea_popescu> BTC-Mining i can't delete "all data" man. the signed stats will forever exist.
smickles: 04:01 < mircea_popescu> you were talking about "data being deleted". a customer wanting to push a claim would be in no worse position today, on the 5th of december 2012 or 2015
smickles: 04:35 < mircea_popescu> i'm not about to delete f.giga.etf entries from the historical records.
smickles: 04:37 < mircea_popescu> what, am i going to log into twitter and delete tweets ?
mircea_popescu: ya well
smickles: 04:46 < mircea_popescu> i didn't say i delete all data lol. i said the shares are discarded as worthless
smickles: 04:47 < mircea_popescu> wtf, delete signed orders create chaos. heck, why not, lets have fun
smickles: last 1000 lines, every time mircea_popescu said delete
mircea_popescu: haha fun times
smickles: all time UTC
smickles: *times
smickles: maybe it was on reddit
mircea_popescu: i've not been on reddit today, you;ve kept me busy
smickles: mircea_popescu: is your reddit user private or something?
smickles: http://www.reddit.com/user/mirceapopescu <> page not found
mircea_popescu: nope
mircea_popescu: its beleeted!!1
mircea_popescu: (ftr, i see it fine)
BTC-Mining: Mea culpa I guess. You were talking about how it's unreasonable to keep the data indefinitly. I understood it as all the data. I pointed out I was annoyed by this.
BTC-Mining: [21:07] <BTC-Mining> Keeping the data aside doesn't cost much logistically.
BTC-Mining: [21:07] <mircea_popescu> well, it is kept aside if you keep your stats.
BTC-Mining: [21:08] <mircea_popescu> mpex isn't designed to be a sort of glbse
BTC-Mining: I completly missed that second line.
mircea_popescu: :p
BTC-Mining: Well actually, I understood it badly.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining will now be punished to copy by hand http://trilema.com/2012/bitcoin-wittgenstein-assets/ ten times
mircea_popescu: for misstating facts, jumping to conclusions and other crmes
BTC-Mining: I understood it as data would be preserved within the saved "stat" data.
mircea_popescu: nah, really, it's a more complex scheme.
BTC-Mining: Not that related transaction data would be kept and compared against
mircea_popescu: made out of parts as it were
smickles: mircea_popescu: http://i.imgur.com/lumDI.png
mircea_popescu: smickles seems we've been separated!
mircea_popescu: whoa proxy 404s me too
mircea_popescu: odd.
BTC-Mining: Nefario claimed not to be using user's funds. Theymos, thinking "wait, Nefario certainly does not have the money to pay for it, he probably used the users's funds". And went ahead making an official statement that Nefario used. Now that's assumption put forward as facts. You stated the data for the ETF would be deleted (A general statement which seems to indicate any data related would
BTC-Mining: be erased), that data would be kept along signed statement (as in all your data too, it was a bit of confusion in my understanding), and then the part with smickles where it went unanswered if you'd honor signed statements (not very useful if you don't keep your part of the signed data).
mircea_popescu: the fact zinger was about the legal stuff re nefario
BTC-Mining: As such, I might have been wrong. But I never presented it as a fact. Although technically we're on a public medium in this channel, this was a conversation between you and me.
mircea_popescu: <strong>BTC-Mining</strong> If you don't know the facts, he claims to have asked the FSA about it long ago but they claimed not to be concerned by anything Bitcoins related. (Probably miscommunication). Trying to go legal, he consulted again and was told to stop or he could be charged.
mircea_popescu: <strong>mircea_popescu</strong> you know this as a fact ?
BTC-Mining: Misstating fact would be me going right away without further discussion or confirmation on bitcointalk loudmouthing how it is a fact you'll delete all signed transactions for the GIGA.ETF rendering taking backups useless.
mircea_popescu: hehe okay.
BTC-Mining: I came for answers and although your statements were a bit cryptic at first, I ended up with my answers.
BTC-Mining: As for the other part where I claim facts, I cannot actually claim direct sighting of those facts.
mircea_popescu: hey, so did everyone else. WHETHER THEY WANT TO OR NOT!!1
BTC-Mining: Only that I know of it from Nefario's meeting with the shareholder, for which the log is not disputed by any shareholder.
mircea_popescu: nefario has this bad habit of lieing through his teeth.
mircea_popescu: very self-righteously about it, too.
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 23244 @ 0.00045762 = 10.6369 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 31616 @ 0.00045734 = 14.4593 BTC [-]
BTC-Mining: No, but some credible or related people have made the claims and have seen them. And I said the fact was Nefario CLAIMED it, not if he lied or not about it.
mircea_popescu: i've been so far perfectly unable to confirm much of it. but who knows.
BTC-Mining: My complain is people passing as fact something they have no credible claim to pass it as a fact.
BTC-Mining: Like theymos passing as a fact Nefario was using user's funds solely because "He thought so"
BTC-Mining: While what I claim Nefario claimed has a public log not contested by GLBSE shareholders of their meeting.
mircea_popescu: tbh, i thought that perfectly credible.
mircea_popescu: (knowing that he had spent glbse money w/o permission, which isn't disputed)
BTC-Mining: No one has any proof Nefario used any of GLBSE's users funds to pay for his lawyer. Theymos just decided it was so.
BTC-Mining: While the log for the meeting is not disputed by multiple people being witness of said conversation, which gives a certain credibility and Nefario said what he said in thos logs.
BTC-Mining: credibility that*
BTC-Mining: One is completly hypothetical and based on nothing. The other is based on multiple witness accounts.
mircea_popescu: it's in those same logs that nefario spent glbse/bcglobal money w/o asking.
BTC-Mining: He said he wanted Bitcoin Global to pay for the lawyer he hired for himself.
BTC-Mining: He denied that he used the users' funds for it and merely claimed to want the expenses to be paid by Bitcoin Global which had money that was not the users' funds.
BTC-Mining: Theymos decided to screw it and just tell everyone Nefario used the users' funds to pay for his lawyer.
BTC-Mining: At least this is what the logs afterward seems to show and he didn't dispute them.
BTC-Mining: I'd have to find it, but I even recall theymos later posting that he had no actual idea if Nefario did that, he just thought he probably did.
BTC-Mining: Note that my previous statement states that I "recall" seeing such a post, not that it actually happened.
BTC-Mining: Let me try and find that.
BTC-Mining: Well that's not it... but it's interesting nonetheless...
BTC-Mining: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115669.msg1307789#msg1307789
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining im not even sure it matters that much eh ?
BTC-Mining: Not at all... Looks like theymos is doing something else completly on his side.
BTC-Mining: ah, here's one of them: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118354.msg1283157#msg1283157
BTC-Mining: He only indirectly admits it in this one, but should be sufficient.
BTC-Mining: The point being, there's a difference between made up scenarios you have in your head and "facts" involving direct claims/witnesses.
BTC-Mining: And I don't like people rushing things as fast on the forum without any proof or reasonable evidence.
BTC-Mining: Hence why I asked you here for more info (got satisfied), instead of going on the forum creating more drama.
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11700 @ 0.00045826 = 5.3616 BTC [+]
knotwork: * mircea_popescu wonders if everyone else is alseep/sexting/busy not giving a shit or quite the contrary, in awed silence at the sheer genius of the debate unraveling before their very eyes.
knotwork: Not asleep, just taking a long time to backtrack to figure out if the whole dramafest-recap-and-rerun was ultimately just something thinking "discard as worthless" implied or intended "deletion of records"
knotwork: s/something/someone/
mircea_popescu: well i guess all this is new, so people make varied assumptions
mircea_popescu: in the end it's not bad, sets precedents etc
knotwork: (yes we deleted the shares as worthless. Oh suddenly dividends turn up? no we didn't delete rcords, presto undelete...)
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 300 @ 0.00046 = 0.138 BTC [+]
knotwork: oops s/yes we deleted/yes we discarded/ ... s/presto undelete/presto dumpsterdive/
knotwork: a technical loophole - we dis-carded as in its not writ on stone nor cardboard anymore, more of a mere paper trail ow
mircea_popescu: moreover, it won't be showing up anymore.
mircea_popescu: you know, you can't just not show people symbols in stats w/o teling them in advance
mircea_popescu: (at least imo)
knotwork: Or are you basically trying to buy them all back so that by the time they are "discarded as worthless" no one is stuck with any anyway?
mircea_popescu: no, im just trying to explain to ppl why starting dec 1st there won't be any f.giga.etf listed in their STAT responses
knotwork: oh right, the real actual effect is actual de-listing
knotwork: the "discarded as worthless" part is what? more a colloquialism? or a technical term meaning something specific?
knotwork: I have lots still in backscroll I havent scrolled back as far as yet
knotwork: seems maybe similar/related to the "a beneficiary was intended" stuff in contracts, mentioned in some pirate threads
knotwork: you got the stuff from Nefario/GLBSE for the purpose of others receiving it
knotwork: so even though it was you who dealt with Nefario the people you got them for still have claim through to Nefario, "in equity", maybe
knotwork: so I dont see much big reason why you should be prevented from bowing out
knotwork: maybe not an reason really
knotwork: but, you did use the term ETF rather than pass-through, even though you also commented maybe casually rather than stated officially/technically that it was kind of sort of maybe at least much akin to a passthrough
BTC-Mining: Well, basically, yes. I was asking mircea about what was going to be deleted and understood his statements differently than what he meant.
BTC-Mining: In the end, everything was fine, but we each lost ~2-3 hours of meaningless argumentation.
BTC-Mining: Hmm, I somehow managed to end up reading a thread about some Intersango drama dating september 2011
BTC-Mining: [05:34] <phantomcircuit> BenDavis, we're an agent
BTC-Mining: [05:34] <phantomcircuit> so the answer isn't yes or no
BTC-Mining: [05:34] <@BenDavis> Are they YOUR coins, yes or no.
BTC-Mining: [05:34] <@Geebus> By that definition, our users have stolen 26200 bitcoins from us through transactions we have sent to them.
BTC-Mining: [05:34] <@BenDavis> the answer is NO.
BTC-Mining: [05:35] <@BenDavis> So. You sending them when they are not yours... makes YOU the thief.
BTC-Mining: It looks like BenDavis has no understanding of the concept of "intent" in the law.
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 9500 @ 0.00046026 = 4.3725 BTC [+]
knotwork: ok done the backscroll. Sounds like MPEx should do like GLBSE ought to, which is, release the info to in this case givavps
knotwork: send gagavps data that will allow MPEx people who held gigavps shares through GLBSE->MPEx to contact giva directly
knotwork: s/giva/giga/
knotwork: since people were explicitly warned up front that whether the PGP identity they use at MPEx would correlate to their real identity was in their own hands,
BTC-Mining: Nah, nah
knotwork: possibly it might even be that MPEx can simply directly tell gigavps which PGP identity held how much
knotwork: I say "possibly" because I do not recall whether MPEx let me use as my PGP identity my normal one, my OTC one, whose publicly listed email address does not exist
BTC-Mining: It seems that if appropriate and feasible, and someone makes a claim with a signed statement Mircea finds out to be receivable, he will honor the claim.
knotwork: I think MPEx did let me do that, and if so, then anyone could have made up any ficitional but syntactically possible email address to make up a PGP identity for
knotwork: thus whether giga would learn who they are given their PGP identity is up to them, as they were told from the start
BTC-Mining: I don't think mircea would do that.
knotwork: I am pretty sure MPEx does not refuse email orders that come from an email address that is not officially tied to the PGP identity whose orders that email address is sending
BTC-Mining: email orders?
knotwork: Because, I recall being annoyed recently at some other site or service or somesuch that rejected my PGP identity seemingly due to its email address (one that does not exist thus doesnt receive spam) not being where I emailed from
knotwork: doesn't MPEx take orders via email?
knotwork: I thought I registered there by sending a PGP-crypted email?
knotwork: later I say one could paste into a web form but was that the only way? was there never a send orders by email?
knotwork: s/later I say/later I saw/
knotwork: Mircea should not have to worry about later claims and honouring them
knotwork: he should just send giga the list of shareholders just like GLBSE is theoretically imagined to be planning to maybe someday do
mircea_popescu: knotwork "anyone could have made up any ficitional but syntactically possible email address to make up a PGP identity for" << this part is correct
knotwork: but unlike GLBSE he need not do weird codes shit, since he told everyone up front that if they want to be anonymous they should create a PGP identity no one knows is them. didnt he? or am I confused having just read bunch of how to Torify email sites?
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining back a year or so ago mpoe traded by email. i think knotwork isn't up to date with the new trade paradigm
mircea_popescu: knotwork nah gpg string is just submited as a post to an url.
knotwork: My OTC identity is webmaster@makemoney.knotwork.com, which deliberately is no longer spammable
knotwork: some idiot service recently refused to let me use that identity because I sent them the email from a real email address that can actually accept email
mircea_popescu: and also yes, everyoen was told. it's in the faq :" http://polimedia.us/bitcoin/faq.html#18
knotwork: so there ya go mircea, just give giga the full data on how much of your passthrough each PGP identity owned
knotwork: was the scale such that some owners might have owned thereby a fractional number of actual gigavps?
knotwork: or was it scaled so it can even actually come out as integers?
knotwork: regardless, giga can no doubt handle it, nd you can give him that info sooner than he hears from GLBSE how many actual shares your entire bunch of PGP people had between them
BTC-Mining: I'm almost sure he won't do that.
knotwork: oh is he one of the "I never sold anyone anything" like Goat not long ago said?
BTC-Mining: I don't see mircea going around asking the ETF holders if they want their information disclosed to Gigavps
BTC-Mining: No, not any of that nonsense
knotwork: their infomration wont be disclosed to gigavps
knotwork: only the information about a bunch of anonymous sock puppets / PGP identities would be released
knotwork: any relation between those identities and actual people the people were warned up front not to cause/create
smickles: i'm sure not everyone did that
mircea_popescu: knotwork there's plenty of problems. for once the scale is 1:1000, for another it wasn't a direct holding, and i see no good reason to pressure giga this way (which would be really abusive tbh)
knotwork: I deliberately used my best known PGP identity
smickles: and why should giga trust that mircea_popescu only issued a proportional amount of the etf shares?
mircea_popescu: and in general it'd be a premier way to cause a mess. i'll pass
knotwork: so if I owned giga passsthrough shares I would of course suffer the consequences of having used a known identity
BTC-Mining: I believe he'll pay out what Gigamining's shares pay to the ETF holder if any receivable claim arrise in the future, where the info would eventually be disclosed and Gigavps would resume payments, and where the claimer has receivable proof he held ETF units.
BTC-Mining: and possibly other conditions I'm missing
mircea_popescu: knotwork this is something that MAY happen, but i'll still try and protect them
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining i tell you, the shit we get involved in here would put to shame a full fledged commercial paper litigation house
knotwork: I was an early adopter invitee, so possibly the invite actually was contingent upon my using my OTC identity?
smickles: i think you only had to prove an ident was you, not have it be the ident for mpex
knotwork: though had I wanted to use an anonymous one maybe ...
knotwork: yes as I was typing
knotwork: I would have come here and argued for it, proven it was me
smickles: heh, sry to seal you thunder :)
knotwork: also it was more about issuing assets maybe than buying other peoples assets
BTC-Mining: Mircea, they'd all say: "We're sorry, but the criterions for your case does not make you not eligible to be a client of ours."
knotwork: he wanted well known/identified people to come look at his system and consider issuing something there
BTC-Mining: Where criterions are the applicable laws and the fact the case does not bring any receivable proof for the litigation to apply those laws.
smickles: oh, that musta been beta b/f the beta i knew of
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 2900 @ 0.00046026 = 1.3348 BTC [+]
smickles: or maybe another side of the same 'beta-coin'
knotwork: re "They", maybe "they" would say of course your offshore corp in a place that doesnt reveal corp owners is not anonymous and we will not hide its identity
knotwork: in other words, if you wanted anonymity you provided it to yourself if you didnt well sorry you didnt, not my problem
knotwork: your PGP identity is your offshore or not corp that does or does not reveal its owners
BTC-Mining: I meant that for any case where funds were stolen, you'd have to prove in courts who you sent the bitcoins to.
BTC-Mining: And that may well be denied by the defendant and impossible to prove.
knotwork: huh?
knotwork: to prove someone stole my wallet I have to prove where I spent its contents?
BTC-Mining: No, to prove someone stole your funds, you'd have to prove you ever sent it to that person.
knotwork: no, that would be to attempt to claim fraud or fiduciary negligence etc
knotwork: stolen is when I didnt send them to anyone yet I no longer have them
knotwork: sending them to someone who then fails to do right by me in regard to them is a bit more complicated
knotwork: it gets into why I sent them to them in the first place
BTC-Mining: Ah, sorry. I was not using legal terms, only the general meaning of stealing.
BTC-Mining: Yes, financial fraud.
BTC-Mining: Was what I was referring to.
knotwork: and I do not have to prove I sent them, the blockchain proves a certain private key ordered them sent
BTC-Mining: And if that person was always dealing from TOR, never tied the bitcoins to a transaction toward one of his bank account and denies owning the address, you can't provide a proof.
knotwork: and that same private key can also sign a digital statement to the effect that it wants them back and why
mircea_popescu: http://trilema.com/2012/conversation-discarded-as-worthless/ convo of doom
mircea_popescu: for the ages.
BTC-Mining: Thank you, thank you.
smickles: oh no
smickles: i hit the paywal
BTC-Mining: I take credit for this mess.
smickles: paywall*
mircea_popescu: give it a week s
BTC-Mining: You've been immortalized, again?
mircea_popescu: and now gents, im wasted so catch you all tomorrow.
smickles: /¯(°_o)/¯
smickles: nn
BTC-Mining: Goodbye Mircea.
smickles: BTC-Mining: i dunno, i hit mircea's paywall
knotwork: gnite
knotwork: oh he has one of those you read too much things?
knotwork: take it as a hint that you read too much :)
BTC-Mining: knotwork, yes there's signed digital statements, but I meant to answer Mircea's statement about commercial litigation house
BTC-Mining: Where if you were to pursue some actual person for financial fraud.
smickles: wow, you get 1000 article views for 1 usd in btc
knotwork: nah it'd have to be a PGP-class action suit :)
knotwork: some lawyer pursuing the person on behalf of a bunch of layr-client-priviledged PGP keys
knotwork: treat it as them being the lawyer's sock-puppets
smickles: "Trilema happens to be the first blog in the world that switched to a paid model, imitated about a year later by The New York Times."
knotwork: no need for any of them to actually ever have been anyone else
BTC-Mining: Which would be worthless, considering most scammers in Bitcoin where always on TOR and used gpg identity not officially tied to anyone.
smickles: i'd be fucked as a scammer
BTC-Mining: Their simple denial to have any knowledge of it ever happening or holding the coins would be accepted and they're free.
knotwork: Yeah I learned years ago that I read the NYT and WSJ and such way too much
BTC-Mining: There's no proof, if the scammer was careful and went away with funds.
knotwork: too much being, once in a few years
BTC-Mining: No trace and no way to chargeback.
knotwork: BTC-M, also no way to get my coins without hacking my machine / coldwallet :)
BTC-Mining: Also that.
BTC-Mining: It goes both ways.
knotwork: or are you implying I was born yesterday? :)
BTC-Mining: Well... I don't know... I suppose each other throwing general statements we already know at each other just like that is quite pointless...
knotwork: :)
BTC-Mining: I motion that we stop this topic this instant. All in favor:
BTC-Mining: Aye
knotwork: Hitler! Nazi! Holocaust!
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 1139 @ 0.0004606 = 0.5246 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 14861 @ 0.00046355 = 6.8888 BTC [+]
mircea_popescu: Some user used an SQLi to get into the System and stole the API keys from the users.
mircea_popescu: I will be honest:
mircea_popescu: He used the http://bitcoin-24.com/EUR/trades.json to get into the System.
mircea_popescu: this is nice
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 26539 @ 0.00046355 = 12.3022 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 15961 @ 0.0004636 = 7.3995 BTC [+]
mircea_popescu: so who wanted to play monopoly yest ? smickles ? thestringpuller ?
kakobrekla: for btc?
kakobrekla: how do you play that
mircea_popescu: i dunno they were asking me yest ?
mircea_popescu: i wanted to check it out
Anduck: mircea_popescu: #bitcoin-monopoly
Anduck: we've gathered people there who wants to play monopoly
mircea_popescu: a ok
kakobrekla: play money or virtual money?
kakobrekla: :>
mircea_popescu: sadly it takes some download
Anduck: monopoly itself is via client-server but we sometimes to btc buy-in, winner winning all
Anduck: yeah its for linux/mac/windows
Anduck: do*
kakobrekla: what the avg game lenght
kakobrekla: whats
Anduck: it varies, 30-60min
Anduck: usually less
kakobrekla: dafuq, it took hours in rl
kakobrekla: even days sometimes
copumpkin: lol
Anduck: well if everyone plays without afking it's fast
Anduck: if someone goes afk after his turn it will take long =D
copumpkin: a fking what?
Anduck: copumpkin btw i did get banned for practicly no reason
Anduck: just fyi
Anduck: did not yell or claim anything to him via pm, it's nonsense
copumpkin: talk to nanotube about it
mircea_popescu: you got banned in monopoly ?!
Anduck: at -otc
Anduck: lol
Anduck: copumpkin: i will.
Anduck: it's just sad he's humiliating me there. and my friends, too
mircea_popescu: who ?
Anduck: "let's ban the kids" and bans 3 more guys
Anduck: gmaxwell...
mircea_popescu: ahaha
mircea_popescu: ;;rated gmaxwell
gribble: You rated user gmaxwell on Sun Apr 8 09:54:19 2012, giving him a rating of -10, and supplied these additional notes: hypocritical idiot..
mircea_popescu: ymmv.
copumpkin: hmhnv
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 23279 @ 0.00045922 = 10.6902 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 25921 @ 0.00045853 = 11.8856 BTC [-]
mircea_popescu: ;;google hmhnv
gribble: Muqaatil bin Hayyaan (d. 150H) - AboveTheThrone.Com: <http://www.abovethethrone.com/arsh/articles/hmhnv-muqaatil-bin-hayyaan-d-150h-the-meaning-of-al-baatin-is-the-closest-to-everything-with-his-knowledge-whilst-he-is-above-his-throne.cfm>; nevada - MesoWest - University of Utah: <http://mesowest.utah.edu/cgi-bin/droman/stn_state.cgi?state=NV>; Philippe geubels - free download - (1 more message)
mircea_popescu: islam ?!
copumpkin: I'm a secret imam
copumpkin: (his mileage has not varied)
thestringpuller: ;;rate mircea_popescu 3 market hacker
gribble: Rating entry successful. Your rating of 3 for user mircea_popescu has been recorded.
mircea_popescu: im a market hacker and im ok
mircea_popescu: i hack all night and i hack all day
mircea_popescu: i cut down btc, i wear high heels, suspenders aaand a braa
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 24427 @ 0.00045853 = 11.2005 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 23895 @ 0.00045811 = 10.9465 BTC [-]
pigeons: today's investment: https://btcjam.com/listings/299
mircea_popescu: i like the plural.
thestringpuller: plural*
thestringpuller: ?*
thestringpuller: possessive you mean
mircea_popescu: of an ex wife
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: do you think educationis welfare?
thestringpuller: public education*
mircea_popescu: i think education that does not include regular beating is an exercise in stupidity indistinguishable from welfare.
Diablo-D3: violence is not the answer, mircea_popescu.
mircea_popescu: oyesitis.
mircea_popescu: make a rule that all kids scoring in the last quartile of their class take ten across the buttocks
mircea_popescu: and get out of the way of sat scores explosion
Diablo-D3: not at all
Diablo-D3: tests do not work.
mircea_popescu: right right.
mircea_popescu: that's why the chinese have taken over the past 20 years
mircea_popescu: because tests don't work.
mircea_popescu: an' violence is not the answer
Diablo-D3: well, then you have to actually quantify what "china taking over" is
Diablo-D3: because remember, they owe the federal reserve more money than the US government owes china
mircea_popescu: eh ?
Diablo-D3: yes, most of the money china loaned us, the federal reserve loaned them
mircea_popescu: look around the house for some item made in the us.
mircea_popescu: and stop believing the bs.
Diablo-D3: okay, so they make shit, so what?
copumpkin: I'm not sure the US education system is trying to optimize for "made in the US"
copumpkin: not that I think it's all that great, either
Diablo-D3: copumpkin: this is true
copumpkin: it just doesn't seem like a particularly meaningful metric to measure by
Diablo-D3: its optimizing for "the US owns the company who made it"
Diablo-D3: we outsourced slavery to China
mircea_popescu: copumpkin are you familiar with how archeologists score dominance in the field ?
Diablo-D3: plain and simple
copumpkin: nope
mircea_popescu: they simply count the objects found.
Diablo-D3: mircea_popescu: okay, so the jews were dominant in egypt?
copumpkin: okay...
mircea_popescu: more roman, less celtic ? romans owned celts.
Diablo-D3: they built the pyramids after all.
copumpkin: and…? :P
mircea_popescu: and thus taking over.
copumpkin: meh :P
mircea_popescu: hey.
Diablo-D3: mircea_popescu thinks he knows things, how cute
copumpkin: they do it that way presumably for lack of better data
Diablo-D3: go back to "beating" your "women", and by that, I mean posting images and saying its you.
copumpkin: I don't really care what archeologists will think
mircea_popescu: copumpkin you're welcome to show your preferred data is better.
Diablo-D3: unfortunately, the time of archaeologists is over
copumpkin: if we pay a bunch of poor laotians to make our sweaters, and all our sweaters are made in laos, that doesn't mean laos is taking over
copumpkin: it means they're cheaper
Diablo-D3: too much data from this time period will permanently recorded
copumpkin: it also doesn't mean they're better educated
mircea_popescu: copumpkin did you just take a system, posit that it's wrong and thus proved it being wrong ?
mircea_popescu: cause im starting to dislike british education too by this measure.
copumpkin: nope, I thought you were advocating doing that?
copumpkin: I wasn't educated in the british system
mircea_popescu: i said the chinese were taking over, asked how do i measure this i showed how i measure it.
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 9548 @ 0.0004619 = 4.4102 BTC [+]
mircea_popescu: the system as presented stands. inconvenient as that may be ideologically.
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: yeah, and I just pointed out that it sounds silly with my laotian example
mircea_popescu: i don't see it sounds silly.
pigeons: moar child beating!
Diablo-D3: I dont want to beat children
Diablo-D3: just adult women
mircea_popescu: but i;'dbe very interested to hear mopre about this "us ultimately owns the money, and it lent it to china for china to lend it back"
Diablo-D3: seriously, delicious boobs, om nom nom
mircea_popescu: it was really delicious dmc-level of thinking.
copumpkin: did I say that?
copumpkin: or is Diablo talking?
mircea_popescu: no, Diablo-D3
copumpkin: oh okay
copumpkin: :P
mircea_popescu: you're missing out :p
copumpkin: Dr. Dre Beats?
mircea_popescu: also we should ignore pigeons he's a troll
copumpkin: what does he beat
copumpkin: he beats your ears?
mircea_popescu: he beats your wife so you don't have to
copumpkin: I wonder what his doctorate is in
copumpkin: it'd be funny if someone awarded him an honorary one
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: but I don't have a wife!
mircea_popescu: he has a doctorate in gravity
mircea_popescu: copumpkin even better, imagine the expense and difficulty of beating the wife you don';t even have. dr. dre got your ass!
mircea_popescu: covered, i mean.
mircea_popescu: or w/e
copumpkin: good point
copumpkin: alright, I approve
copumpkin: I'm gonna go buy some of his beats
Diablo-D3: mircea_popescu: okay so
Diablo-D3: by your reasoning
copumpkin: I'm making beef jerky
Diablo-D3: black people, fresh off the boat from africa, were dominant in the south before the civil war
Diablo-D3: since they did all the work
copumpkin: Diablo-D3: don't you usually use another word for them?
mircea_popescu: did all the work != made all the itams
mircea_popescu: you need to stop glossing when trying to think, it's unseemly.
Diablo-D3: copumpkin: no, I reserve that word for the black people who bring up that their ancestors were such and that it means something in their daily lives
copumpkin: oh, I see!
copumpkin: makes perfect sense, carry on
mircea_popescu: he's not racist, he's culturally-aware debateist
copumpkin: yeah
Diablo-D3: mircea_popescu: okay so, the black slaves _did_ do all the work and make all the items
mircea_popescu: what such items ?
copumpkin: wooden dildos
mircea_popescu: lol
Diablo-D3: all food was handled by slaves, from the fields to the dinner table.
mircea_popescu: they made pretty decent music, which would count as an item for this conversation, except it wasn't valued at the time. arguably that gives them a leg to stand on
Diablo-D3: food is the single largest industry in the world, and has been so for the past 6000 years.
mircea_popescu: hence all the current attention being paid to niggers in the us.
mircea_popescu: food is however not much of an item in this discussion
Diablo-D3: so the _single largest industry in the world_ is not viable for this discussion? the hell?
Diablo-D3: thats some republican style debating going on there.
mircea_popescu: but you understand what we're discussing right ?
Diablo-D3: yes, we're discussing if china is dominant or not
mircea_popescu: right.
Diablo-D3: and Im of the camp that they're not, not when they owe us that much money
mircea_popescu: now, in china iron pots and pans handle most of the food
mircea_popescu: does this mean the evil empire of iron pots is dominant in china ?
pigeons: always seems to be an intelligent discussion when the n word is used
copumpkin: yup
mircea_popescu: pigeons you know the knights of ni sketch ?
pigeons: yep
mircea_popescu: ever considered it's a reference ?
Diablo-D3: china's GDP is $11 trillion, they owe us around twice that.
Diablo-D3: (thats a little over $8k per capita, btw)
pigeons: i love monty python too but i dont pretend it makes calling people that name any less silly
Diablo-D3: so either they're our slave labor (at worst) or we just own all the major exporting companies (at best)
mircea_popescu: you know china holds about 1.2 trillion right ?
copumpkin: china also makes baijiu
copumpkin: really tasty liquor
mircea_popescu: actually as it stands right now, the chinese own more of the us than americans do.
Diablo-D3: mircea_popescu: yes, so? they owe us around twice their GDP.
mircea_popescu: by a wide margin.
Diablo-D3: anything china owns in us, we own by default.
mircea_popescu: ...
mircea_popescu: fascinating.
Diablo-D3: now, if they were to pay what they owe, yes, you would have a legitimate argument
Diablo-D3: now, normally I would say our investment in their country was a good one, except the federal reserve did it without foreknowledge of congress or the treasury or the president.
Diablo-D3: technically, congress could force china to pay back the entire amount now since the contract may not have been legal to begin with.
Diablo-D3: I would rather go for a debt swap however. they owe us slightly more than we owe them.
mircea_popescu: o rly ?
Diablo-D3: it would collapse the chinese economy, but thats not my problem.
Diablo-D3: they make about 5% annually on the trade difference due to the debt, or about $1.1 trillion a year.
mircea_popescu: i happen to think this conversation is a great argument for educational brutality.
mircea_popescu: and i do mean brutality.
mircea_popescu: nah, i can't be bothered to do it myself.
copumpkin: you'd better, or he'll do it to you
mircea_popescu: but i imagine a correct solution would be something like, make further endowments dependent on beatings documentation.
mircea_popescu: we're not equals.
pigeons: NO U
mircea_popescu: so there you have it thestringpuller. happy nao ?
copumpkin: we need to get Luke-Jr into this
mircea_popescu: ahaha
jurov: wtf i just did
mircea_popescu: do you feel enriched nao ?
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 3561 @ 0.0004636 = 1.6509 BTC [+]
jurov: can't exactly name it
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 25878 @ 0.0004636 = 11.997 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 30900 @ 0.00046437 = 14.349 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 26190 @ 0.00046532 = 12.1867 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 1700 @ 0.00046553 = 0.7914 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11100 @ 0.00046819 = 5.1969 BTC [+]
mircea_popescu: well i put most of it on my blog, too
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 23200 @ 0.00047029 = 10.9107 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 35700 @ 0.00047077 = 16.8065 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 7700 @ 0.0004739 = 3.649 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 22622 @ 0.00048788 = 11.0368 BTC [+]
mircea_popescu: if you feel like you need to re-read
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 5600 @ 0.00048934 = 2.7403 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 10000 @ 0.00049999 = 4.9999 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 199410 @ 0.0005 = 99.705 BTC [+]
jurov: MUST...RESIST...
mircea_popescu: lol
jurov: in similar situation i'd prolly just start to troll btc-mining or fell asleep
mircea_popescu: i am made of steel.
jurov: couldn't believe how it went on and on
mircea_popescu: good future investment, people can just be given a link
jurov: i think i'll bring it to next level and start tvtropes page about trilema blog...
jurov: and about this chan
mircea_popescu: haha
mircea_popescu: i am a great fan of tvtropes btw
mircea_popescu: iirc when a girl pointed that site to me i got lost in there for 30 hours
mircea_popescu: prolly read 500k words
jurov: you see. then, when some dispute is imminent, just hand'em this combined trilema/tvtropes tranquilizer
mircea_popescu: ahahahaaha
mircea_popescu: i need a soup nazi
jurov: MPOE-PR: Trope namer :DDDD
mircea_popescu: haha
mircea_popescu: an ACTUAL girl on the internet that everybody talks to as if it were some guy.
mircea_popescu: in spite of her right boob flippantly falling out of her blouse
Diablo-D3: fucking tvtropes
thestringpuller: she is hot as shit
thestringpuller: but she is mean
mircea_popescu: those two seem to go together don't they
thestringpuller: no one likes a mean girl :$
thestringpuller: :(
mircea_popescu: i like mean girls.
thestringpuller: my aunt was a mean girl
thestringpuller: her children are scarred
thestringpuller: :P
mircea_popescu: fuck the children.
thestringpuller: you dont have any children do you?
thestringpuller: ;)
mircea_popescu: nope.
mircea_popescu: i'm like chronos.
thestringpuller: or spike spiegal
thestringpuller: "i hate kids"
mircea_popescu: i don't hate them, they just don't pay enough to be bothered.
pigeons: chronos had a son
mircea_popescu: eventually.
mircea_popescu: guy ended up teh master of the universe, too.
mircea_popescu: i think that's informative.
pigeons: yeah his son did. but some say zeus castrated chronos like chronos did to uranus
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 18000 @ 0.00048 = 8.64 BTC [-]
mircea_popescu: a well. ballz are overrated :D
kakobrekla: hehe http://www.room77.de/
mircea_popescu: what's that, german scat club ?
kakobrekla: http://www.npr.org/2012/06/01/154140277/berlin-restaurant-experiments-with-virtual-currency
thestringpuller: lo
thestringpuller: lol
thestringpuller: whoa
thestringpuller: mooe stock is hot
thestringpuller: mpoe
thestringpuller: smickles: monopoly tonight?
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla o cool
mircea_popescu: gotta check it out next im there then!
kakobrekla: yup
jurov: live.coinbr.com looks epic nao :)
mircea_popescu: o hey
mircea_popescu: epic ? it looks like it's about to blow omg
mircea_popescu: i don't want to sell more shares ;/
kakobrekla: i dont have any left :\
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 82000 @ 0.0005 = 41 BTC [+]
mircea_popescu: haha i still have some left
jurov: just computed value of my mpoe shares for first time in few months ... fuck i'm rich now!
mircea_popescu: haha wd .
mircea_popescu: i made some offer to forum ppls to get 10k share blocks a while back
mircea_popescu: some claimed but some didn't. a well :p
jurov: personal offers? completely missed that
mircea_popescu: yeah, it was a list of people.
mircea_popescu: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112694.0
jurov: all together, my IPO investment value multiplied ~ 24x in euros ... fucking can't believe it.
thestringpuller: yuuup
thestringpuller: congrats boys
thestringpuller: jurov
thestringpuller: broker man
mircea_popescu: jurov : mpoe.etf went up 1200% by the time it was dissolved.
thestringpuller: can i pm you and get broker advice?
mircea_popescu: and that was in btc
jurov: it clearly shows how inflationary currency those euros are
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 17900 @ 0.00048643 = 8.7071 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 22000 @ 0.00048554 = 10.6819 BTC [-]
mircea_popescu: i guess so.
thestringpuller: sell into the wall! lol
mircea_popescu: there's a wall ?
mircea_popescu: not really any wall.
mircea_popescu: i checked lol
thestringpuller: not anymore
thestringpuller: there was
dub: mircea_popescu: wat
mircea_popescu: dub hm ?
dub: you like gage?
dub: that dude is so fucking retarded it hurts
mircea_popescu: sooo ?
mircea_popescu: pigeons iirc threw a fit too. why do you all hate gage!
pigeons: cause there is enough diareah on the forum, don't encourage more
dub: joel wins that forum clearly
mircea_popescu: Miscellaneous policy-based unjust factors such as 'withdrawal within the locus poenitentiae'
dub: loupgaroux is just a cronic masturbator, contradicts himself constantly
mircea_popescu: for fucks sake.
mircea_popescu: latin phrase "in locus poen" becomes within the locus on wikipedia
mircea_popescu: ITS IN PLACE OF
mircea_popescu: dub i like his posts stylistically.
dub: gage I get a distinct paranoid schizophrenic hillbilly signal from
dub: mircea_popescu: sure there is some wit to a few of his posts but he likes himself too much and really doesnt have a lot of depth
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 3000 @ 0.000475 = 1.425 BTC [-]
dub: he'll rant and rave on one subject and completely contradict himself in the next post
mircea_popescu: well a forum isn't really the venue for depth is it ?
pigeons: not if you reward retards
mircea_popescu: o come onh! i ruined btctalk, is that it ?
dub: haha yes!
mircea_popescu: i dun goofed nao :(
dub: also, CP
mircea_popescu: counterparty ? or the other cp ?
dub: channeling that ciuciu moron
mircea_popescu: what ever happened to him anyway ?
pigeons: i lost the password for that account
mircea_popescu: it's kinda funny when various internet entities who we are expected to treat like, you know, as if they were human beings, with rights and all
mircea_popescu: fail to survive as long as some 4chan thing
mircea_popescu: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/12eoxg/bitcoins_market_cap_is_at_wellover_100million_and/c6ui5li
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 8820 @ 0.00048137 = 4.2457 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 26356 @ 0.00048792 = 12.8596 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 4924 @ 0.00049519 = 2.4383 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.DICE] 1820 @ 0.00339944 = 6.187 BTC [+]
mircea_popescu: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/12f27g/how_btcusd_options_fared_in_2012_graph_porn/ << in case anyone missed this
jurov: nice, but the II., IV., VI. graphs suck, sorry
jurov: you can't compare the two depicted values
jurov: nor get at least approximate numbers off them
jurov: for example in II , can anyone guess to which weeks belong the two short position (red) spikes?
jurov: mircea, maybe you should outsource all graphing (nudge, wink)
mircea_popescu: jurov um
mircea_popescu: are you working off the small versions or did you click the graphs ?
jurov: magnification help a bit, but only a bit
jurov: *helps
mircea_popescu: but what's the problem exactly ?
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 4199 @ 0.00048679 = 2.044 BTC [-]
jurov: nah, i don't feel like bitching today again, after that yesterday's letting off steam over jsonrpc :)
mircea_popescu: lol
jurov: if it bothers anyone else, please explain it to mircea
mircea_popescu: but as to "which week" : the simple way to interpolate 3d graphs is to look at the angle gain.
mircea_popescu: there's 140 px angle gain between front of front column and back of back column
mircea_popescu: making them weeks 20 and 25 respectively
jurov: okay
mircea_popescu: (the angle gain you see in the right hand edge of the graph)
pigeons: bah, not very accessible to the angle blind
mircea_popescu: ya well. supposedly 3d graphs look spiffier
jurov: supposedly it's also possible to make things both spiffy and clearly readable
mircea_popescu: well now that all depends.
dub: fuck I am old
dub: one 24 hour day at work and I'm broken
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 3000 @ 0.00048528 = 1.4558 BTC [-]
dub: in my youth I didn't need sleep at all :(
mircea_popescu: in my youth i didn't work.
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: you dont work now
mircea_popescu: so ?
mircea_popescu: 4ever young
mircea_popescu: but i do work.
thestringpuller: nuh uh
thestringpuller: you sit around in your playboy mansion and party
mircea_popescu: haha or that.
mircea_popescu: it is CEO work.
thestringpuller: so getting blowjobs from interns
thestringpuller: sounds like my kinda job
thestringpuller: where do i apply?
jurov: for intern?
mircea_popescu: hahaha
smickles: juzus fuck. How many banking websites am I going to encounter which want me to enter a password on a page like 'http://dumbshits-r-us.bank.com'
smickles: plaintext pw is no good people
mircea_popescu: they have javascript rsa
mircea_popescu: do not worry your prettyhead mr customer.
smickles: this site in question has no js on it
mircea_popescu: smickles it's a joke, prolly insider
mircea_popescu: there's no js rsa
smickles: heh, got me
thestringpuller: smickles !
smickles: thestringpuller ™
thestringpuller: monopoly tonight?
thestringpuller: lets get mircea in
thestringpuller: take all his money lol jkjk
mircea_popescu: i checked it out earlier, but... i ain't installing softwarez
smickles: sure :) you going to actually be awake?
smickles: mircea_popescu: you don't have a laptop that has nothing valuable on it?
mircea_popescu: hm, that's a point. mk, lemme set something up.
kakobrekla: https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/397309_548804025146742_258329982_n.jpg
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 5197 @ 0.00048528 = 2.522 BTC [-]
smickles: really? people don't make meatloaf anymore?
smickles: :D
smickles: well, it's actually 6, but there are 2 extra lines for readability
mircea_popescu: smickles ok so listen, what's the website again ?
smickles: *the* website?
smickles: mpex.us ofc ;)
smickles: for monopoly? one sec
mircea_popescu: yup
mircea_popescu: haha cute :p
smickles: http://www.psmonopoly.com/download-monopoly
mircea_popescu: ty
smickles: it has the better client
mircea_popescu: be online in 10
kakobrekla: hm
kakobrekla: it if doenst require too much attention i can try as well
mircea_popescu: meh, it won't install and i dun have the patience to debug it.
thestringpuller: laaaaazy
mircea_popescu: hey, first time i touced windoze in years
mircea_popescu: i should get props