pete_dushenski: BingoBoingo: two bucks says that the miata owner is not the least bit displeased that two honies romped around in his ride. he's surely sorry he missed it! jealous wife, on the other hand...
pete_dushenski: which afaicantell maps to the log discussion
pete_dushenski: it addresses exactly the "can i pick it up if it's dropped?" question
pete_dushenski: asciilifeform: lol funny you should ask. i just came across a research paper on very much this topic the other day, which i've now uploaded on my site for posterity (and your consideration) : http://www.contravex.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Behavioral-Despair-in-the-Talmud.pdf
jurov: the rules apparently is that if he claims that was not a mistake but mining cartel, that is beyond discussion.
nubbins`: "you need to get the rats out of the kitchen and then later you'll want to make a meal there? i think not"
jurov: no, the very rules going against my values
nubbins`: shooting from the hip
punkman: considering everyone is using private addresses these days, I wonder if donations are still a thing
jurov: sorry: *wences sending rounded amount and then suing over fiduciary responsibility
jurov: *then siung
jurov: wences sending rounded amoutn and the suing over fiduciary responisibility
jurov: the rota thing
jurov: it goes back long time to things like the wences lawsuit, i likened the situation to mpex having a sinkhole in the foyer
jurov: when they did word it right, you have obeyed?
jurov: danielpbarron: do you have any idea how many times i heard that in my life? surely you must have did too, did you likewise obey them?
nubbins`: but really all i'm doing here is filling in the time between layers of ink
nubbins`: don't get me wrong, holding mp's feet to the fire is a good lel
nubbins`: glad trinque ignored me, it was annoying having him bleat at me all the time
nubbins`: asciilifeform there's plenty of folk i like talking to here besides you :D
nubbins`: whether he comes, goes, ignores me, shuts down his companies, erases his little lords list, w/e. don't care.
nubbins`: asciilifeform i stuck around here for the interesting convos, verbal diarrhoea from mp aside.
trinque wonders at walking asciilifeform through the mechanics of a troll
trinque: enjoys the shit
nubbins`: people who do things on one side. mp, dpb, trinque, hanbot on other. alf in middle
asciilifeform: trinque: i suppose that if we imitate republican spain long enough, mp will take his ball and go home, and there will be no l1 etc.
nubbins`: if we took all the bees out of danielpbarron's and trinque's panties, we could make honey.
asciilifeform: danielpbarron: dun work this way. he's on the l1.
assbot: Successfully added a rating of -3 for nubbins` with note: treats the forum like reddit, behaves like a fool
trinque: !rate nubbins` -3 treats the forum like reddit, behaves like a fool
trinque: !rate -3 nubbins` treats the forum like reddit, behaves like a fool
nubbins`: so, how does everyone feel about there no longer being a lordship?
asciilifeform: nubbins`: so far the point of greatest disagreement between him and i is whether to talk to nubbins` !
nubbins`: <+asciilifeform>nubbins`: what am i then. in what box do i live in, in your cosmos ? << the box where deference trumps cold reason
nubbins`: nevermind that mp and his gurlfriend are the biggest toilet mouths in bitcoin
jurov: just to complete the picture, i had to privately calm down several people who were utterly freaked out :(
asciilifeform: nubbins`: what am i then. in what box do i live in, in your cosmos ?
jurov: trinque you aren't at least rubbed the wrong way by mp's approach?
nubbins`: man, if there's one person i stopped reading earlier today, it's trinque
trinque goes to cleanse the vile spirits elsewhere
trinque: the way one forgets and falls back into the patterns of his youth.. it almost makes one believe in danielpbarron's demons :p
trinque: there is no public here.
nubbins`: <+mircea_popescu>let me point out to you that bitbet came down over my realisation that this is how you lot think. stop fucking thinking like this before i have to cut more heads. <<< or, put another way, "stfu talking dangerous talk, alf, or s.nsa is next"
trinque: I reject the notion of having no face entirely
trinque: I can see your perspective there
asciilifeform: precisely the opposite of 'i just want to x, leave me be.'
asciilifeform: and by commenting, was fulfilling what i see as my obligation to work in the forum.
asciilifeform: i do not have strong emotions about bbet, or the participating folks.
asciilifeform: trinque: i bring it up because i reject the accusation of partaking in the emotional wreck.
asciilifeform: terraform the mournful pesthole, one square metre at a time
trinque: that amounts to "I just want to" and saying the world is somebody else's problem
asciilifeform: (and along the way teaches me useful stuff.)
asciilifeform: if i'm an imbecile, i will remain one whether 'looking like it' or not.
asciilifeform: i cannot speak for others, but i'm not particularly concerned with what i look like.
trinque: maybe time to let the case be handled by davout and move on to better things
asciilifeform: i bet ninjashitgun & co are rubbing their cocks raw with glee reading the last 3 wks of logz.
trinque: to invoke my upbringing... y'all ever heard of another man's business?
jurov: well, i feel i'd lose face either way
asciilifeform: trinque: stage is set for various folks doing smashingly dumb things because 'would otherwise lose face.'
trinque: why? everyone got to satisfy his emotional needs, feel a part of the process, get his voice heard.
asciilifeform: and not only i have nfi, but i sorta wish i had taken vacation to the jungle for past 3 wks.
trinque: the petulance in here lately is revolting.
nubbins`: <+hanbot>this "lord" shit is pretty ridiculous by now eh. << actually fucking ridiculous from the start, but with occasional convenient side effects
asciilifeform: (e.g., i never saw the ' mircea_popescu ought to personally eat the expense ' angle )
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 20:04:38; jurov: kakobrekla hanbot is trying to explain to everyone that mp, by covering operator error and covering other expenses, earned the moral right to sometimes shift the bill to the shareholders as he deems fit
hanbot: jesus fuck jurov, were you bitching about bad faith or not? were you using the fact mp ate a loss before as a justification for why he should do it again or not?
jurov: and i actually mentioned the "good faith" question like 3 times in two days. and i don't like to repeat myself. were not for hanbot, it would be well safely buried in the logs by now.
jurov: precedent of whether mispayments were ever considered against future bet winnings
trinque: this pissing in the face of people who try to create worlds gives me zero cause for optimism about the future.
jurov: hanbot actually, i was NOT writing it in that context, it was in context of whether mispayments were ever considered against future bet winnings. so you did yourself disservice by connecting these things, and it's actually interesting you keep doing it
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform it is the priviledge of the great to try and raise the crowd ; it is the priviledge of the crowd to prove that this can not be done. very well specified, and working as intended.
mircea_popescu: it is nice and good to wish to turn some kids into some men. but the wishing does not do the turning, and they all got toys to play with so - there it goes.
mircea_popescu: not a matter of hate or anything fo the sort.
mircea_popescu: oh get the fuck outta here.
asciilifeform: i suppose this is yet another thing that we never specified.
mircea_popescu: entitled to whatever the fuck you wish.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform get lost with the bs. i'm going to do your job ? not fucking interested. you wanna talk to him, do, enjoy, who am i to get in the way of idiocy.
mircea_popescu: but otherwise i've just nullrouted log.b-a
mircea_popescu: i'm not going to read further logs, at all, for as long as nubbins` can speak into them.
mircea_popescu: jesus fuck look at that crap. i'm done reading this log, wtf, still with the idiots talking ?
asciilifeform: well my argument was 'in order for bbet paying them X to be bbet's obligation, they oughta HAVE paid back the double.'
hanbot: jurov what you've got is neither a point nor a fact but a contention, and while it may inform your opinion on what your own or other people's actions should be, that is ALL IT CAN DO; it does not in any way grant you the ability to use established good faith thusly.
asciilifeform: but like'em nevertheless.
asciilifeform: we don't live in the water mains
asciilifeform: my whole mission on planet3 is to multiply 'the places like that.'
mircea_popescu: sure, if the world were a spherical chicken, etc.
asciilifeform: when done correctly - no. we don't sit here and argue about how the modular exponentiations came out.
mircea_popescu: it's fascinating that in one field you'd make EXACTLY the choices you unerstand to be wrong in the other.
mircea_popescu: that doesn't result in better security, but does result in more complex rabinic arguments down the road.
mircea_popescu: yes, the code could have been more bloated
asciilifeform: because folks wouldn't nail down their axioms.
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 17:59:46; kakobrekla: from the first paragraph of the bb faq: The beneficiary address is never changed under any circumstances. Please make sure you own it!
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: i argued self into the position that the original system was ill-defined
mircea_popescu: yes but you can't simply be argued out of a position then come back with it two hours later.
asciilifeform: i;ll take the ball-peen plox
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 18:03:06; asciilifeform: they were PAID.
mircea_popescu: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=23-03-2016#1438892 << you apparently need another hammer fucking five times ?
asciilifeform: did the settlement formally include an originating addr for bbet ?
asciilifeform: so why should it not claim the doublesend as part of what was owed ?
asciilifeform: danielpbarron: and if you do not think it needs formalizing, 'we could only all agree if we all saw the light' (WHICH LIGHT?!@!!) - you are gravely mistaken.
asciilifeform: danielpbarron: as i understand, it was proposed as to one possible solution to formalizing the promise made by bbet when a bet is made.
asciilifeform: but not if it gets in the way of his main business
asciilifeform: now, i can see running a mixer from pure profit motive, like an atheist might run a kosher butcher shop
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 20:14:39; asciilifeform: if we're subscribing to the 'all coin is fungible' religion, then mixers are a heresy.
PeterL: if mp would share mpb txn-fee setting algorithm, then you could say why
asciilifeform: davout: it might be problem, if some clever fella sends the 1MB tx with 0fee...
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 19:31:01; jurov: PeterL: these tx would be BIG
jurov: which fact he vehementhly denies and bullshits around, straining MY good will in the process
jurov: hanbot i want first and foremost to clarify the point that mp, by mucking with zerofee tx, left the car unlocked overnight in dark alley
hanbot: jurov if i got plastered and proceeded to crash my car into your house last week and paid for the damages without question, and this week i'm carjacked and hit your house again, you may not use the fact that i happily paid for the former incident as proof that i should pay for the latter, and you may *especially* not attempt to use it as proof while complaining about my "bad faith"
jurov: well, then i utterly don't get it
asciilifeform: if we're subscribing to the 'all coin is fungible' religion, then mixers are a heresy.
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 19:26:54; jurov: alternative mechanic brainstorm with current btc: all bets would be scooped to one address per proposition and winners would pe paid from there exclusively
kakobrekla: too bad i realize this only now, otherwise would have made such error more often.
kakobrekla: but this clearly no longer is the case in #b-a
jurov: kakobrekla hanbot is trying to explain to everyone that mp, by covering operator error and covering other expenses, earned the moral right to sometimes shift the bill to the shareholders as he deems fit
kakobrekla: but if you can go around losing bitcoins as you please without consequences the whole thing is, how do you say, moot
hanbot: the fucking gall seriously.
nubbins`: and the division of funds exists on paper only
jurov: that every account in the accounting should have its own btc address
nubbins`: send funds to bet addr. funds remain there. winners and house grab are paid from same.
nubbins`: hanbot to the rescue again
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 19:21:24; kakobrekla: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=23-03-2016#1439145 < this is an interesting q. the second 17 btc was mistakenly sent in bbet name, a mistake for which mp should be liable for.
nubbins`: kakobrekla asciilifeform seems to be arguing mostly alternate-universe theories
nubbins`: <+asciilifeform>how does creditor know he was paid by debtor? how does debtor know he paid creditor ? <<< obvious answer is when the input funds are used for payout
kakobrekla: im not sure we are talking about the same thing here
asciilifeform: i would blame him if the next day he still says that i owe 100.
kakobrekla: the question is wrong. you owe him 100, you send 200 and blame the inanimate fucking object.
asciilifeform: because if tx-a had never happened, they would-have-been-paid-by-bbet
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 15:43:19; asciilifeform: tomorrow i trip over a cable, fall on a button, accidentally fire pistol, the bullet hits another button, sends him 90 btc.
kakobrekla: the thing is, i was in charge of x, he was in charge of y. a part of y was 'delivery of bitcoin to winning addresses' which, by mp claims, was done wrongfully (hence the charge)
asciilifeform: whereas if spec had been 'winners will receive C coins on addr A from addr B at time T if condition Q' then there would be no puzzle.
asciilifeform: called in, to saw the baby in half.
kakobrekla: if one was interested on which tx that was - would need to look for that tx in the winners addresses history and establish it from there
asciilifeform: so then.
kakobrekla: asciilifeform there was 1 tx per 1 resolved bet that included all the winners with respective sums - i guess this was deemed sufficient proof
PeterL: what do you mean 1% fee spammy, that is what they take as commision
PeterL: is it really that much bigger than the current version? don't they already do all payout in one txn?
jurov: PeterL: these tx would be BIG
PeterL: jurov, wouldn't it be easier, rather than doing two transactions (sweep, then distribute) to just do a single? (bets are used to pay winnings, the 1%fee to a bbet company address)
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu has said that he intends to play the 'all coin is fungible and unidentifiable ' etc. game. which is fine. but what i don't grasp is how it is possible to craft hard record of debt and repayment without some hook on which to hang them.
jurov: alternative mechanic brainstorm with current btc: all bets would be scooped to one address per proposition and winners would pe paid from there exclusively
asciilifeform: the answer - would be obvious to anyone with half a neuron.
asciilifeform: (where it does no one any good to prove that a tx was encoded at a certain time, the sender can still doublespend the funds)
asciilifeform: jurov: yeah it wouldn't work with the time curve
assbot: Logged on 23-03-2016 18:59:09; davout: asciilifeform: do you agree that, if the 17 btc mp sent a second time aren't billed to bbet, it follows that this second transaction can't come in deduction of bbet liabilities to bettors/addresses?
kakobrekla: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=23-03-2016#1439145 < this is an interesting q. the second 17 btc was mistakenly sent in bbet name, a mistake for which mp should be liable for.
asciilifeform: so that a bitcoin node can calculate whether it in fact happened.
asciilifeform: i.e. does it mean 'pays from this here addr to that there at time t'
nubbins`: "if i knew everyone'd be so mad about these payouts, i would have kept company funds in a separate address"
davout: jurov: aren't gas and ether two different things?
jurov: asciilifeform: this souds like "should reimplement bitbet with ether, referees just click a button, gas gets released algoritmically, no possibility of human error"
asciilifeform: otherwise - soup.
nubbins`: otherwise it's just noise vs noise
nubbins`: sending 20yearplan all those posters to give away to tenants too poor to own computers, in the hope of luring them here (????)
trinque: part of the lesson here is just how explicitly the parts of the agreement involving moving coin *must* be
asciilifeform: because he picked up the knife.
nubbins`: pretty seat-of-the-pants in retrospect, huh.
davout: trinque: see previous comment, approval was usually expressed after the fact, until it didn't
asciilifeform: thing is, regardless of how this is settled, there was a catastrophic failure in 'protocol vs promise' land where bbet never nailed down what ~exactly~ bet winners are promised.
davout: asciilifeform: if claims are against addresses you can't assign intentions to them!
davout: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=23-03-2016#1439164 <<< the way i understand the listing is that everything had to be approved by both, it usually happened retroactively with kakobrekla signing statements, until he didn't
nubbins`: if you send BTC to an address i own, i'm not a thieving swine regardless of whether you meant to send it.
nubbins`: it is described in the manual of common sense what will happen if a fool pays a debt twice
asciilifeform: nubbins`: it is described in the manual, what will happen if you send to a closed bet.
davout: "(d) All decisions with regards to any aspect of BitBet, measures taken in regards to any aspect of BitBet operation, any actions, activities or agreements involving BitBet will require unanimous agreement of all the representatives of BitBet. Any such decision, measure, action, activity or agreement which fails to obtain unanimous agreement of all BitBet representatives is void and unenforceable. "
asciilifeform: davout: so the thieving swine who pocketed the windfall, KNEW whose coin it was, and what will happen to bbet, a 0-asset corp, when it is missing, and did nothing - have no greater share of responsibility than other bettors ?
nubbins`: because it's in the listing agreement
trinque: if mp declared he had loaned that coin to his business, who can say otherwise, and why?
davout: asciilifeform: i'd argue communism would actually be the opposite
davout: PeterL: yeah, that's pertty much the conclusion i came to so far
asciilifeform: davout: my argument in the beginning of this mega-thread was that to give ~all bettors the same fraction of the haircut~ is 'communism' because they are in fact ~unequal~ in crafting their misfortune.
PeterL: either mp sent his own coin, and recipients get to keep it, or mp sent bbet coin, and davout would be justified in withholding futher payment from those addresses
nubbins`: there's no body to appeal to for justice
davout: asciilifeform: do you agree that, if the 17 btc mp sent a second time aren't billed to bbet, it follows that this second transaction can't come in deduction of bbet liabilities to bettors/addresses?
trinque: this idea that there will be some social aggregate before which one can cry for justice...
davout: jurov: there's also precedent of dividends being paid twice for a month, and then retained from further divs payments
nubbins`: sure, and if it's only used by the owner to go ATVing up at his cottage
trinque: there's some ridiculous hotdog chain here in TX that owns one iirc with their absurd logo painted on
trinque: you own the company!
nubbins`: the public will mock me and call me a fraud
trinque: you are thinking as someone in the fiat world
nubbins`: but if i buy a race car for personal use and charge it to the company
nubbins`: as a privately-owned corporation, i can do pretty much whatever the fuck i want
davout: PeterL: there is no "should"
trinque: nubbins`: can you invest your own money in your business which is then use to pay liabilites of said business?
davout: in other words, if mp's claim on bbet is approved, it means he was acting on behalf of bbet, which means bbet can consider the same claim settled twice and deduct the amount from further payouts
asciilifeform: davout: but say the 1st tx went into dev/null as mircea_popescu intended it to when sending the 2nd. would the bettors have been wronged ?
davout: asciilifeform: i think the matter becomes mucho clearer if you ask yourself "did bbet pay twice or did bbet pay once with mp coming along later for a gracious donation to the same recipients"
asciilifeform: trinque: and ultimately davout has the scalpel now. but i can still ~say~ to him, 'hey listen up the liver is ~that~ way'
nubbins`: fwiw all the dealings are public
trinque: all of it smacks of us being a part of some aggregate whose opinion matters in the private dealings of those present.
nubbins`: i've never seen such vehement opposition to simple discussion of factual events as i've seen in here the past few weeks
asciilifeform: trinque: i have no standing whatsoever re bbet. but the matter is in the forum, fwiw. so we comment.
nubbins`: you guys are the ones taking me seriously or not
nubbins`: trinque your argument is: the public doesn't get to lambast those who do poor business?
trinque: the fuck is this committee action
asciilifeform: trinque: seems like the bettors were ~never~ promised payouts ~from particular addr~
trinque: nubbins`: and you're not one of them
trinque: and if that causes a dispute among the board of said company, well, here we are.
nubbins`: trinque one of the owners decided this, yeah...
trinque: if an owner of a business decides that address Y is now the payout address for something instead of X, fuck you, it is.
asciilifeform: davout: esp if the slope is not the least bit slippery, much as some folks might like to pour soap on it
trinque: this conversation is well downstream from the much more important question of *whose decision it about what a business they own does*
nubbins`: then you're back to straight-up incompetence, releasing two separate-input tx's into the wild for the same bill.
kakobrekla: asciilifeform yes, after the last fuck up i have added a way to specify the resulting tx when bet is resolved and payment is done so we wouldnt be doing two payments for one bet any more (because this obviously doesnt work!!)
PeterL: I think the delay by bitcoin network was assumed to be okay
asciilifeform: so this time it was broken by paying them ccc - e coin at time t - t', ahead of schedule.
asciilifeform: it was rather 'ccc coin to addr specified at bet time, at time t'
kakobrekla: im not even sure what is being argued here but i feel it might relevant that proof of payment on bbet was always ambiguous - there was no explicit thing showing the payment - the most explicit was the lack of complaints
asciilifeform: PeterL: iirc it is in the lee sedol comments.
gribble: The operation succeeded.
PeterL: has anybody added up how much the doublepsent addresses have left deposited in bbet?