Matches for mircea_popescu, 288436 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Mon Mar 07 17:01:54 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> PeterL: i have nfi how mircea_popescu concluded that miners were involved. the only clue i have is that it has recently come out that the top cn miners have formed a derp committee of some kind, apparently for purposes of negotiated separate peace with the enemy
Mon Mar 07 16:55:46 UTC 2016 <assbot> The greatly anticipated BitBet (S.BBET) February 2016 Statement on Trilema - A blog by Mircea Popescu. ... ( http://bit.ly/1LamWrs )
Mon Mar 07 16:53:35 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> anyway i have no idea if mircea_popescu send the 'doubles' because he was pissed and mashing keys, or if he forgot that most of the node network is run by imbeciles who go by chronology to 'resolve doublespend', or what. ask him, not me.
Mon Mar 07 16:51:51 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> what was bbet (or mircea_popescu at the console, or imagine youself there instead) do instead ?
Mon Mar 07 16:48:58 UTC 2016 <PeterL> but how is mircea_popescu going to address the concerns if he ignores the people who raise them?
Mon Mar 07 16:46:47 UTC 2016 <PeterL> <mircea_popescu> by this measure, there's a large overlap between all sorts of things. maybe there is, sure. << it only takes one, and I bet and have a node, therefore it might have been me too
Mon Mar 07 16:44:18 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> anyway, ima bbl.
Mon Mar 07 16:43:33 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> by this measure, there's a large overlap between all sorts of things. maybe there is, sure.
Mon Mar 07 16:42:48 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> and then we do this a coupla more times, and so on.
Mon Mar 07 16:42:40 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> let's move on to the next step. THEN, MP broadcast A2, which HAD a fee. to a non-overlapping set of nodes. the disjunction of the two sets had a perfectly valid txn they... also didn't broadcast, because magic reasons.
Mon Mar 07 16:42:12 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> all the outputs go to bet winners.
Mon Mar 07 16:40:30 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> well... if it's not a bettor then "for them A1 credits one of their addresses and so it sticks around forever for them" doesn't stick anymore.
Mon Mar 07 16:38:46 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> as it isn't, per your theory, the case that "Whole world saw". just the set in question.
Mon Mar 07 16:38:22 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> this - should be given a %.
Mon Mar 07 16:38:16 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> so far, we're with the assumption that "bettor with incentive was running one or more of the nodes mp connected to".
Mon Mar 07 16:37:54 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> depends what code they run, but this could well be.
Mon Mar 07 16:37:20 UTC 2016 <PeterL> mircea_popescu you seem to be making some big assumptions and plugging your ears whenever anybody questions them
Mon Mar 07 16:36:58 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> i thought i had, yes.
Mon Mar 07 16:36:05 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> see, the problem with assumptions is - making them.
Mon Mar 07 16:35:49 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> this is integral.