deedbot: diana_coman has not rated douchebag.
diana_coman: !v 26D6263DD1CF71B77F9F08B00E556AFD5151F70108D684D43B134054F28A21FF
diana_coman: !!v 26D6263DD1CF71B77F9F08B00E556AFD5151F70108D684D43B134054F28A21FF
deedbot: diana_coman rated douchebag -5 << obstinate time waster
diana_coman: trinque, is the !!ledger cmd not working? deedbot seems to ignore it (didn't yet reply to one sent ~30 minutes ago although it replied to the !!rate meanwhile)
phf: the people must know!
a111: Logged on 2018-12-11 00:17 diana_coman: oh, fanbase,pfuai
diana_coman: I lost count how many times I told him to go & exploit but apparently I don't know anything about modern vulnerabilities that can't be exploited
phf: you don't understand it's a level 3 bounty, it's supposed to net him 3042 hckr.io points, and a payout of $27
diana_coman: quite; tbh it merges into a sort of "code political correctness" model to me: basically the effect does not matter, but if you use the "wrong" and unapproved formulation then it's BAD; and it should be reported; and it matters!
diana_coman: eh, he prolly found therefore a vulnerability in deedbot too!! look, he can still speak even if no voice
mircea_popescu: so in the end the understanding is these bright young minds aspiring to a "computer security career" are the period politruks, looking to help construct a social narrative consensus by policing [the relevant forms of] speech ?
lobbesbot: asciilifeform: The operation succeeded.
mircea_popescu: the guy immortalized in 1984, "turned in uncle" etc... that's now a work of fiction. by then, had 2-3 decade history behind.
mircea_popescu: there's a good match between the [biology-driven] formalist approach of children, "act like adult become adult" and the purely formalist approach to the world of the superificial mental systems typical of naggum's "the meaningless lives of those who do not wish to have any meaning to their lives".
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform because this is the only door that ~means something~.
mircea_popescu: but yes, in terms of ye olde "Wäre es da Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung Löste das Volk auf und Wählte ein anderes?", 15yo soviet pioneer ~only true and proper citizen of soviet state.
mircea_popescu: a point not lost on the very soviet state in question.
BingoBoingo: Maybe the kid just needs a (((packing))) peanut internship with avik?
BingoBoingo: The pair can take turns drugging and appropriating each other, perhaps this even occupies them enough to constrain their external actions by occupying all their time
BingoBoingo: Of course there is the mid-long term hazard the kid outlives avik and evangalizes the predatory stupids down the line
trinque: diana_coman: works for me over here. at what time were you trying?
diana_coman: trinque, at ~11 and then later at 11:26; in between those it worked perfectly fine to rate
diana_coman: hm, now it answers !!ledger though so I guess it was a hiccup at that time
a111: Logged on 2018-12-13 15:58 mircea_popescu: this notion is so indigestible to me...
diana_coman: at any rate, the whole "security testing" seems to be "check if they do x and y and z if they don't do one of them then vulnerability!!!"; no context, no interest for what the thing is or in what context it is used or what it stands for, nothing more than "did they say tovarase ceausescu x times per page?"
trinque: diana_coman: wallet's a different service that connects to the other bot for IRC. I'll take a look when I get a moment. I wager the internet connection between the two went down.
diana_coman: trinque, ah, that would explain it yes; at any rate it's no rush at all and no real trouble caused
diana_coman: asciilifeform, hm, I guess I need to search more and see exactly what it provides then
diana_coman: iirc there is some synchronized queue interface and container but it seemed overkill
diana_coman: I'll read in more detail again at any rate, won't hurt
deedbot: diana_coman rated juliankunkel 2 at 2018/12/13 17:48:15 << CS Lecturer at Reading Uni, invited me to give a Bitcoin talk.
a111: Logged on 2018-12-12 16:14 asciilifeform: meanwhile, in other tardations, re
http://btcbase.org/log/2018-12-11#1879893 >> the radiographers all seem to want 2-3k. which is lulzy, cuz for half of that one can simply buy the machine..
diana_coman: since Julian was at my talk on Monday, he now knows something about WoT :D But more to the point: he is so far the one and only Uni lecturer who wants to understand this bitcoin thing as opposed to just talk about it. So I'm quite happy he's here.
juliankunkel: asciilifeform: thx, I will have a look; I'm looking a bit round here.
juliankunkel: side-channel attacks seem fun; how much longer you'd expect until it works and is proof?
juliankunkel: asciilifeform: interesting stuff. going home now ; see you!
mircea_popescu: diana_coman as in "the only possible statement of mp's ultimate optimism will be centered around a refusal to believe such, for lack of any other available centers."
mircea_popescu: if you go the dentist route, make sure you check the rated power. plenty of the last gen things so low power, can't see through tin foil.
mircea_popescu: they measure in microsieverts (ie, grays) for some reason. but anyway, the latest ones do like 12 uSv
a111: Logged on 2018-12-13 17:52 juliankunkel: hi all. Interesting stuff with your WOT and game.
mircea_popescu: should be fun to see how well "magical tech" works if plugged into LARGE ram.
mircea_popescu: i have a lingering suspicion we'd like x86 stack a lot better if memory had stayed the size it was WHEN THE DAMNED THING WAS DESIGNED
a111: Logged on 2018-12-11 17:34 mircea_popescu: then ~lone man~ of wanna-be rus' yellow man copied item.
mircea_popescu: can has 64GB ram on the cheap now. considering what period pricing was like, 2020 reconstructed bolix'd better have 1TB ram.
mircea_popescu: yes, but n+1 step there is... "well, bolix v2020 comes with 1tb ram. which it uses."
mircea_popescu: meanwhile, let's hijack this a little for some s.mg discussion.
mircea_popescu: so, i hear from cto the comms spec's mostly implemented. now, we're at the point where we wanna make a rsa and a serpent sender.
mircea_popescu: there's two evident ways to go about this : either have these together in a single chunk that owns a socket ; or else have them independent, in which case what, they share a socket ? they each get a socket ?
mircea_popescu: even go the distance of keeping a task manager to keep spawning them, and giving them sockets ?
diana_coman: asciilifeform, lol, no, the point there is the sender/receiver layer of a eulora app essentially
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform suppose you're on a multi-core cpu, suppose the socket's not filled but the sender is.
diana_coman: asciilifeform, you do need because 2 different sizes i.e. 2 different udp lib types essentially
mircea_popescu: diana_coman thinking of it : the ~server~ very likely wants a lot of sockets ; strictly because talking to multiple clients at same time.
diana_coman: asciilifeform, the q is basically: how many messages/sec clogs the socket essentially
mircea_popescu: diana_coman the problem's rather, two sockets will possibly clog for fever total msg/sec than one.
diana_coman: asciilifeform, I don't follow - 1mn clients can send 1mn datagrams to server, what has serpent to do ?
mircea_popescu: diana_coman does it then make sense to have a process that has a socket open and handles the serpent queue, and one proces with a different socket open handling the rsa queue (with a view that these :6666 and :6667 ports then get moved to separate machines if need be) ?
diana_coman: mircea_popescu, that was my current idea: 2 sockets, one for rsa and one for serpent, with different ports too
diana_coman: receiver just grabs from udp lib and drops into a queue
mircea_popescu: whole reason to even do it liek this so client can separate its traffic
diana_coman: doesn't even bother to decrypt or whatnot because anyway it has no info as to keys and all that
diana_coman: asciilifeform, I made it generic so I don't have to copy/paste code just for different const
mircea_popescu: diana_coman the expectation that serpenting rather than netsending will be the processing bottleneck is not unfounded, imo.
diana_coman: well yes, as long as sender/receiver are ultra-thin aka only from/to queue to/from udp lib then no clog expected at socket
diana_coman: well, except for the case where 1mn simultaneous clients I suppose but possibly that gets lost before even reaching the nic
mircea_popescu: diana_coman conversely, if they're that thin why do they exist.
☟︎ diana_coman: that's what I've been going round in for most of today!!
diana_coman: asciilifeform, yes; the idea though was not to lose the packets that made it to the nic though aka because server busy sort of thing
mircea_popescu: diana_coman to proceed logically : 1. it is factual that the expected bottleneck reasonably is de-serpenting. 2. everything-else then may safely be non-threaded. 3. do we actually want to thread the serpenting part ?
diana_coman: 1. expected bottleneck is message processing: encrypting/decrypting sounds most likely but in principle whatever further processing since not even specified yet fully! 2. the everything else is raw udp (aka udp lib) and feeding it/reading from it aka those would be sender/receivers
diana_coman: 3. I think that's to be a dynamic thing basically aka at a higher level server looks and if it needs to, it creates more workers to process those messages accumulating there
a111: Logged on 2018-12-13 19:29 mircea_popescu: diana_coman conversely, if they're that thin why do they exist.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform im not strictly aware of this. whence the notion ?
mircea_popescu: diana_coman so then : a) thin wrappers mosrtly to rescue the queue from ip stack into ram ; b) threaded workers later, which may include but will likely not be limited to, specialist decipherers.
diana_coman: mircea_popescu, works, it's a clear decision at least
mircea_popescu: weren;'t you arguing asecond ago the rescuing from nic needn't be threaded ?
mircea_popescu: ah. "threaded" here means, "task manager spawns processes". think how apache server works.
mircea_popescu: imo venerable, successful, and mandatory to copy mechanism./
diana_coman: the one thing hanging would be re errors I suppose
diana_coman: what should sender/receiver do on udp lib barf
mircea_popescu: if it isn't, i'd like to know about it, because i quite like the model.
mircea_popescu: diana_coman you proposing it'd be better to resend than ignore ?
☟︎ diana_coman: well, udp lib closes the socket in this case
diana_coman: I don't know but given Close_Socket(S), ignoring seems rather ...
diana_coman: weird because no way to recover even if plugged back in or something
mircea_popescu: there's two possible situations here. 1. connection has transient problems, resending would help ; 2. connection died, resending will waste more time.
diana_coman: but if udp lib closed the socket how would it help?
mircea_popescu: "logical" connection how shall i put it. path ? line ?
diana_coman: I mean don't keep trying to send on a closed socket sort of thing
mircea_popescu: well what could the wrapper possibly do other than resend ?
mircea_popescu: but i mean... if the socket's closed the wrapper returns neh ?
diana_coman: the sender? so it's not ignore, but "abort all"?
mircea_popescu: diana_coman if the socket is in fact closed, your program dies, there's no twowaysabout this.
diana_coman: I suppose "ignore" in the sense of let the exception propagate and the program die
mircea_popescu: "returns" in the sense of "return error, let machinery stop"
diana_coman: that was my original meaning but then I got the impression you said the wrapper should ignore so then...it should keep trying?
mircea_popescu: no, what i'm saying is that with udp it is ~never worth "Retrying" in the tcp sense.
diana_coman: right, that wasn't the proposed approach at any time
mircea_popescu: and this is a fundamental assumption baked into the udp spec etc.
diana_coman: asciilifeform, I don't know if/that that is indeed the only thing that can kill the socket; and testing won't quite tell me either
mircea_popescu: i guess this is a spot you;ll have to proceed on faith,
mircea_popescu: "there are not enough errors you can fix for the machinery to fix errors be worth having around".
mircea_popescu: like an airport where it never snows, just meteors fall now and again. snowplows not useful.
a111: Logged on 2018-12-13 19:39 mircea_popescu: diana_coman you proposing it'd be better to resend than ignore ?
mircea_popescu: "wtf does he mean ignore, isn't that just resend???" sorta thing ?
mircea_popescu: in the other line, have you played with ada threads any ? are you friends ?
diana_coman: anyway, rewinding: thin sender/receiver wrappers; on udp lib eggog, program dies (hopefully more gracefully than disgracefully but still death)
mircea_popescu: diana_coman yes, certainly should provide whatever diagnosis tools and equipment you want. i don't want to fill that in yet, it'll... come to you, as it happens :)
mircea_popescu: "this is needed for the same reason as the generic at UDP lib previously - to allow one to store Serpent messages or RSA messages while maintaining them clearly differentiated" << why are you putting ducks and geese in the same line though ?
mircea_popescu: hm. i suppose this is okay, really. scalable enough, if eventually we decide to get a s and a r machine, they'll just have their own queues and that's it.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform no, counterintuitively hers is the right cut.
mircea_popescu: two kilobytes are two kilobytes. the advantage of doing it the way she does it is that if you get two machines later, you can run this code unmodified. the disadvantage is absent, because two kilobytes are two kilobytes, what do yo ucare if "separate"
mircea_popescu: this machine for serpent, this machine for rsa, is the model here.
mircea_popescu: but re your q : these 6 workers pick rsa from queuer ; and these 3 pick serpent from queue.
diana_coman: mircea_popescu, that's precisely why I made it that way; I suppose it's not clear there at all but yes - because processing of rsa/s is meant to be easily and entirely separated physically, aka machines
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform afaik you can "get top X" rather than "get top" neh ?
diana_coman: mircea_popescu, the way I implemented it it's as asciilifeform says but the reason it is *this* data structure is because of intended use so linked to above
diana_coman: i.e. yes, it could have been implemented as mircea_popescu describes if I didn't aim for this specifically
mircea_popescu: yes. diana_coman mind explaining how this works ? so, queue has 55 elements, 22 of which rsa packets. now what happens ?
diana_coman: my implementation is just a bounded queue fifo, 1 item at a time in /out; and yes, I looked again at Ada's standard stuff and I could use I think a bounded_synchronized_queue container but then it forces me to put/get full structure
mircea_popescu: well, serpent processor wants a serpent item to process.
diana_coman: q1 has 22 elements all of which are rsa packets; q2 has 33 items all of which are s packets ; rsa processor eats from q1 , s processor from q2
diana_coman: "as asciilifeform describes" aka 1 item put/get at a time; 2 different queues, one for rsa one for s
mircea_popescu: and then if we get two boxes, there's gonna be an allocated and always-empty queue on each of these.
diana_coman: you don't have to deploy rsa sender on s box
diana_coman: uhm, it's "different" in the sense of one parameter
diana_coman: they are same code except payload_len parameter
mircea_popescu: ok, so the idea here is, that while maintaining different code on different boxes is costly and undersirable, nevertheless that is mitigated by the relative ease of the genericization/prototyping mechanism in ada ; whereas single queue model, as logically tempting as it may be, is costlier than it seems (not necessarily because insertion can't be o1, but still, machinery involved).
mircea_popescu: "I'm not even sure whether a sender/receiver should be in fact part of smg_comms" << while this has merit, i'd still keep them in.
mircea_popescu: not like can't separate later. but generally speaking the tendency of v-trees is integration.
diana_coman: given the decision for thin, it makes sense, yes
diana_coman: because they are non-client/app specific really
mircea_popescu: do they check and signal when queue is fuller than some percentage << i expect the task manager will have to do this. not the wrapper, no.
diana_coman: aha; thin sender/receiver can't do anything about it anyway
diana_coman: they will just get potentially stuck waiting for queue to empty
diana_coman: mircea_popescu, well, in principle you can run out of space and that'll raise an exception and program dies :D
mircea_popescu: eg, client can (and well behaved client is expected to) send multiple serpent keys upon first connection.
mircea_popescu: but "here's the 256 serpent keys i want you to pick amongst" is not.