jurov: like 1CoinBr662GWdiqVz8mXJUnYjWZbBchKAb ?
jurov: but i need one per user anyway
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?
jurov: goodnight..have to wake early
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
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: if i visit romania can we hang out and go to romanian strip clubs?
pigeons: no strip clubs in romania yet, but mircea's has a sister
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: so option prices will decline as the month closes?
thestringpuller: it feels like tehy are most effective at the end of the month...
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
copumpkin: it sure gets wannabe traders' rocks off though
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.
mircea_popescu: ya, except for a couple : one that doesn't try to time and another that got there by accident.
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.
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: thestringpuller i use the strategy of "try to build useful things"
copumpkin: mod6: where do they get their data?
mod6: anyway, its been widly reported this year -- just seaching on google for stuff.
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: 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%.”
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 [+]
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
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
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
smickles: convenience could be one reason. relatedly, maybe they can only 'think' in terms of usd
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"
mircea_popescu: then lag would measure their usd -> btc -> mpex latency
smickles: yeah jjjimy or whatever his name is
smickles: or did he get taken out in some way?
smickles: your sec sigline seems to be getting good exposure (for the forum)
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 18970 @ 0.00046037 = 8.7332 BTC [-]
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: 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
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 900 @ 0.00045982 = 0.4138 BTC [-]
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: it's been a month already. november is another month. how much later than that ? 2014 ?
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: 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: From only declared claims which are a lot fewer than the payment chains seen those claims are included in.
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 ?
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 16457 @ 0.00045819 = 7.5404 BTC [-]
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 ?
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"
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.
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: and quite a few lowball mining operations
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"
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: but i mean... if not even half the shareholders are reinstated the thing is moot anyway
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.
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: It's the most blown out of proportion screw up someone could do.
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: and seeing how there's maybe a coupla dozen actual people with actual investments
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.
BTC-Mining: Since AML was not required and the majority probably claimed...
BTC-Mining: The total amount of shares vary a lot.
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.
mircea_popescu: Barack Obama will be re-elected as the president of USA
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.
BTC-Mining: Hmm, but the data does exist. Wouldn't a simple backup of the tables containing the data for the ETF be enough?
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.
BTC-Mining: That's the thing, they would be direct shares with Gigamining should the information be released.
mircea_popescu: basically, the reasoning is this : there was a company organised to finance a ship sent to wherever.
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: sure, the concept of spices, or the concept of cargo, or the ship's destination still exists.
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.
BTC-Mining: Nefario still talked to a few people recently. But doesn't answer publicly or to support requests.
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?"
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.
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.
mircea_popescu: there's sufficient reference to "owning shares" to satisfy this point.
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 true of mpex, yes, because mpex is correctly designed
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.
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."
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
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 ?
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.
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.
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: 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: if "allows income and sharing of it much faster" that'd seem on the face that it... allows... things...moving...faster.
BTC-Mining: Because why would he wait before moving on? For data recovery if possible. If not possible, move on.
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: 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.
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 ?
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.
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.
BTC-Mining: So he could be checking further how to minimize his liabilities.
BTC-Mining: Decide to require AML again for disclosing assets, or anything really.
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: even though this was not specifically written out in thecontract, a set interval of time will be allowed for recovery
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.
BTC-Mining: I'll have to fetch the sources, but it seems likely. Seems to be what GLBSE shareholders claim.
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.
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.
BTC-Mining: But Nefario seems to only be able to aford some lousy lawyer.
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: 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 ?
sgornick: > mircea_popescu wonders if everyone else is alseep/sexting/busy not giving a shit or quite the contrary,
BTC-Mining: 8/60th of minimum salary in whatever area he is located.
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.
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>
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: 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
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?
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
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: 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: 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 ?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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: 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: and it was "an obvious ponzi" pretty much to three people iirc.
BTC-Mining: Sorry. The business stopped paying suddenly one day.
BTC-Mining: All I'm saying is, 1 month is not reasonable delays.
BTC-Mining: 1 month before delisting, 6 before deleting the data you hold, would be the minimum I find acceptable.
gribble: You are identified as user smickles, with GPG key id EA62D7CEB2450C3F, key fingerprint 96ACCA7C3B09EC61B0A6D7F9EA62D7CEB2450C3F, and bitcoin address 12NjnZTVeTJ3g5C7BqfS2aQ2rLkmwiqVz6
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 [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 5400 @ 0.0004657 = 2.5148 BTC [+]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11631 @ 0.00046613 = 5.4216 BTC [+]
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: 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.
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.
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.
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
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: there's no dispute that in law i can drop the entire thing on oct the 5th.
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.
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: i have (indirect) claims on about 1k (more like 1.1 iirc) of gigaminign shares.
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 <<
BTC-Mining: I said if information was released after December 1st, you'd now be in possession of those bonds.
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.
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.
BTC-Mining: What smickles proposed about involuntary bailee.
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.
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: You own rights to Gigamining bonds (on your own will). I own claims to them.
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.
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: overwhelming force has voided the f.giga contract
BTC-Mining: He has no such clauses or anything reserving himself the right to arbitrarily and unilaterally void the claims he sold himself.
BTC-Mining: You own shares in the mining thing, not the glbse mining thing.
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.
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: 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
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.
smickles: BTC-Mining: didn't you claim to have bought a bunch of f.giga when glbse went down?
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)
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining because the vehicle for my ownership was the glbse share
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: mircea_popescu leased an office in a building, the building is taken out by a tornado
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.
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: anyway, even the example as given is simplified, because it gonflates giga and glbse into A.
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.
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
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: i don't claim it's perfect or anything, should carry the day
smickles: then BTC-Mining contested, right
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: 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: 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?"
BTC-Mining: And 1 month does not seems appropriate.
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
BTC-Mining: I'm not contesting it 1 month after. I'm contesting the fact you chose 1 month from day 1.
BTC-Mining: "[23:25] <mircea_popescu> we waited a month, and you are saying "well we should wait six cause this guy is slow""
BTC-Mining: We didn't wait a month, that's the thing.
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.
BTC-Mining: I would have no problem accepting it if I had agreed the delay was reasonable, and waited the whole of that delay.
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.
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).
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.
BTC-Mining: You're treating it like every other Bitcoin scam with the equivalent delays before declaring it lost.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining ask copumpkin, i was pushing for pirate write-offs in august.
mircea_popescu: people seem more religious than business-oriented in btc.
copumpkin: I wonder what he's doing with all the money
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: 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.
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.
copumpkin: nah, I actually didn't join a frat in college
copumpkin: thought all that drinking was kind of stupid
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
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.
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: you know, like if you don't make the mortgage payments cause your cat was sick
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.
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: 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.
smickles: copumpkin: but it's santa cLAWs
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.
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.
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: omg, that's exactly what I said
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.
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: i'm sure it's april fools day even if it was the 11th
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
BTC-Mining: No. Because that's 40 years. It's unreasonable.
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: 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
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
smickles: i have no patients for giving people a little more time
smickles: they take my spelling away from me
mircea_popescu: btw copumpkin have you noticed the "refards" signature in that email ?
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: 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 ?
BTC-Mining: What good would prior notice and saving the statement do?
smickles: doesn't that imply he'll honor them before 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
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
mircea_popescu: well or alternatively he could "sue" me on injust enrichment or w/e
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.
smickles: i took that to mean a stat made after dec 1
BTC-Mining: After december 1, no STAT will include any ETF holding because data will have been removed...
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.
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: 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 [-]
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 [+]
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.
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.
mircea_popescu: and i had to stick to "all i'll do is pass along all that's passed to me"
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: 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...
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: well, i don't think it was wasted time, something tells me this discussion will form precedent for many later discussions.
BTC-Mining: If you don't want to pronounce yourself on something with unkown variables, just state it.
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: 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.
BTC-Mining: After that statement, I think it went unnanswered and we kind of dropped getting anything clear out of it =/
BTC-Mining: Well, if you don't mind, I have 2 final question.
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.
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
BTC-Mining: I understood it as you were going to delete ALL data...
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 :)
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.
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: 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
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?!"
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.
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.
mircea_popescu: II. MPEx reviews complaint. either it has or it has not ulterior transactions signed by person
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.
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.
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
mircea_popescu: wtf, delete signed orders create chaos. heck, why not, lets have fun
smickles: he's going to quote you saying something
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 ?
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
smickles: mircea_popescu: is your reddit user private or something?
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
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.
BTC-Mining: Not that related transaction data would be kept and compared against
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).
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.
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.
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: (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: 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: Well that's not it... but it's interesting nonetheless...
BTC-Mining: Not at all... Looks like theymos is doing something else completly on his side.
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"
mircea_popescu: well i guess all this is new, so people make varied assumptions
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: you know, you can't just not show people symbols in stats w/o teling them in advance
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: 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: [05:35] <@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: 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,
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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: 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: 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.
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
smickles: BTC-Mining: i dunno, i hit mircea's paywall
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.
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
knotwork: BTC-M, also no way to get my coins without hacking my machine / coldwallet :)
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...
BTC-Mining: I motion that we stop this topic this instant. All in favor:
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.
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 ?
Anduck: mircea_popescu: #bitcoin-monopoly
Anduck: we've gathered people there who wants to play monopoly
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: well if everyone plays without afking it's fast
Anduck: if someone goes afk after his turn it will take long =D
Anduck: copumpkin btw i did get banned for practicly no reason
Anduck: did not yell or claim anything to him via pm, it's nonsense
Anduck: it's just sad he's humiliating me there. and my friends, too
Anduck: "let's ban the kids" and bans 3 more guys
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..
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 23279 @ 0.00045922 = 10.6902 BTC [-]
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 25921 @ 0.00045853 = 11.8856 BTC [-]
gribble: Rating entry successful. Your rating of 3 for user mircea_popescu has been recorded.
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 [-]
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: make a rule that all kids scoring in the last quartile of their class take ten across the buttocks
mircea_popescu: that's why the chinese have taken over the past 20 years
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
Diablo-D3: yes, most of the money china loaned us, the federal reserve loaned them
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
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"
mircea_popescu: copumpkin are you familiar with how archeologists score dominance in the field ?
Diablo-D3: mircea_popescu: okay, so the jews were dominant in egypt?
Diablo-D3: they built the pyramids after all.
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
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: 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
copumpkin: it'd be funny if someone awarded him an honorary one
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: but I don't have a wife!
mircea_popescu: copumpkin even better, imagine the expense and difficulty of beating the wife you don';t even have. dr. dre got your ass!
copumpkin: I'm gonna go buy some of his beats
Diablo-D3: black people, fresh off the boat from africa, were dominant in the south before the civil war
copumpkin: Diablo-D3: don't you usually use another word for them?
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
Diablo-D3: mircea_popescu: okay so, the black slaves _did_ do all the work and make all the items
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.
Diablo-D3: yes, we're discussing if china is dominant or not
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
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: 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.
Diablo-D3: anything china owns in us, we own by default.
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.
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.
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.
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 [+]
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 [+]
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: in similar situation i'd prolly just start to troll btc-mining or fell asleep
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: iirc when a girl pointed that site to me i got lost in there for 30 hours
jurov: you see. then, when some dispute is imminent, just hand'em this combined trilema/tvtropes tranquilizer
jurov: MPOE-PR: Trope namer :DDDD
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
mircea_popescu: i don't hate them, they just don't pay enough to be bothered.
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 [-]
jurov: live.coinbr.com looks epic nao :)
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 82000 @ 0.0005 = 41 BTC [+]
jurov: just computed value of my mpoe shares for first time in few months ... fuck i'm rich now!
mircea_popescu: i made some offer to forum ppls to get 10k share blocks a while back
jurov: personal offers? completely missed that
jurov: all together, my IPO investment value multiplied ~ 24x in euros ... fucking can't believe it.
mircea_popescu: jurov : mpoe.etf went up 1200% by the time it was dissolved.
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 [-]
dub: that dude is so fucking retarded it hurts
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: latin phrase "in locus poen" becomes within the locus on wikipedia
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
dub: channeling that ciuciu moron
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
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 [+]
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: are you working off the small versions or did you click the graphs ?
jurov: magnification help a bit, but only a bit
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 :)
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: (the angle gain you see in the right hand edge of the graph)
pigeons: bah, not very accessible to the angle blind
jurov: supposedly it's also possible to make things both spiffy and clearly readable
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 :(
smickles: plaintext pw is no good people
smickles: this site in question has no js on it
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?
assbot: [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 5197 @ 0.00048528 = 2.522 BTC [-]
smickles: really? people don't make meatloaf anymore?
smickles: well, it's actually 6, but there are 2 extra lines for readability
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.