Matches for mircea_popescu, 288436 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Wed Mar 23 13:59:20 UTC 2016 <davout> mircea_popescu: you haven't provided any support for the notion of "a fellow" that you introduced, or did i miss it?
Wed Mar 23 13:58:34 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> certainly not after the fact.
Wed Mar 23 13:58:20 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> solrodar you may not make assumptions.
Wed Mar 23 13:57:53 UTC 2016 <solrodar> mircea_popescu: aren't you the one that always argues that there are no people, only keys? In which case there's nothing wrong with recovering money from keys. If the key is controlled by multiple people, that's their problem.
Wed Mar 23 13:57:45 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> which is, seal things in the past in such a way they aren't revisable in the future.
Wed Mar 23 13:57:36 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> it is also very visibly, and very risibly, reaction to bitcoin, which is to say a transparent attempt to exactly prevent specifically what bitcoin does,
Wed Mar 23 13:56:43 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> this is the ESSENCE of powerrangering.
Wed Mar 23 13:56:37 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> fine, if you absolutely must : suppose owner made an agreement with a third party that the nth txn goes to x and the nth+1 goes to y. are they now bound to revise their agreements on the basis of how you may wish to liberally reinterpret the protocol ?
Wed Mar 23 13:55:54 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> so ?
Wed Mar 23 13:55:45 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> davout i am not proposing anything. you are proposing to introduce some assumptions, which seem ridiculous on the face, and are invited to support them.
Wed Mar 23 13:55:19 UTC 2016 <assbot> Logged on 23-03-2016 13:51:32; mircea_popescu: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=23-03-2016#1438364 << and you're going to ask the fellow to submit proof that he didn't... sell the address ? or etc ?
Wed Mar 23 13:55:05 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> quite.
Wed Mar 23 13:54:49 UTC 2016 <solrodar> so we say mircea_popescu controlled a large quantity of bitcoin, and had agreed to consider a certain quantity of it the property of bitbet, but that concept of property does not go beyond any agreement which may have existed between him and bitbet?
Wed Mar 23 13:53:11 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> "you know, react, dissolve, whatever you wanna call it" sorta thing.
Wed Mar 23 13:52:47 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> PeterL the difference happens to be rather important from a legal perspective.
Wed Mar 23 13:52:36 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> but other than that - nobody has any title over any bitcoin nor could anyone acquire any title over any bitcoin.
Wed Mar 23 13:52:13 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> you may at most control some.
Wed Mar 23 13:52:10 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> solrodar no, because while the dog might be your dog, bitcoin may not actually be your bitcoin.
Wed Mar 23 13:51:32 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=23-03-2016#1438364 << and you're going to ask the fellow to submit proof that he didn't... sell the address ? or etc ?
Wed Mar 23 13:42:54 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> yes, the prepubescent boy is in love ; but what's he going to do for the adult woman ? have her WAIT ?