home | log | search | bash |


Transcript for 19-04-2016, 448 lines:

02:32:20 funkenstein_: https://ghostbin.com/paste/6kho7

02:32:21 assbot: 6kho7 - Ghostbin ... ( http://bit.ly/23HASBt )

12:00:20 kakobrekla: ;;later tell ag3nt_zer0 yes, the religidiots were banished to the room next door

12:00:20 gribble: The operation succeeded.

14:35:59 funkenstein_: i encountered my first subway car qr code beggar today

14:37:17 funkenstein_: laminated qr, asking passengers to please scan and send him some funds

14:38:08 funkenstein_: !up snowflake

14:44:33 kakobrekla: bitcoin address?

14:45:05 kakobrekla: or what was encoded in a qr code?

14:46:00 funkenstein_: wechat pay ID

14:46:48 kakobrekla: nfi what that is but i assume you need a phone for that?

14:46:53 funkenstein_: yup

14:47:21 funkenstein_: tiny pushcart vendors, rickshaw drivers, a lot of folks accept it

14:47:56 kakobrekla: beggars with cellies - always seemed a thing that should not exists to me

14:48:18 kakobrekla: unless he had an iphone

14:48:35 funkenstein_: hehe yeah, well this chap had only a laminated piece of paper

14:50:42 kakobrekla: laminated! check out the progress

14:51:08 funkenstein_: lol, friends in high places ;)

14:52:49 kakobrekla: i wonder if he tips his co-beggars without the lamination

14:54:07 funkenstein_: teehee - anyway the OTC procedure at e.g. a restaurant is the waiter shows the QR code, patron scans, waiter looks over shoulder while payment is made on phone

14:54:39 funkenstein_: kinda surprising in a place where trust is such that a lot of restaurants make you pay up front

14:57:10 kakobrekla: lulz

14:57:28 kakobrekla: no phake payment app to install yet?

14:57:45 funkenstein_: there's gotta be one, i haven't looked though

16:42:48 kakobrekla: here we go again http://fr.anco.is/2016/bitbet-proposed-settlement-transaction#comment-8578

16:42:49 assbot: BitBet proposed settlement transaction | fr.anco.is ... ( http://bit.ly/1pevZwK )

16:48:44 PeterL: kakobrekla didn't the whole bitbet debacle blow up because you claimed those payments were not from bitbet, and now you are claiming they are from bitbet?

16:49:09 kakobrekla: you must be confused

16:49:36 PeterL: yes, I must be, are those not the double payment from the jeb bush bet?

16:50:11 kakobrekla: could as well that jesus made those txes (check with daniel re that)

16:50:54 kakobrekla: i mean, can you show me otherwise?

16:51:17 PeterL: the money had to come from somewhere, right?

16:51:35 kakobrekla: sure

16:51:51 PeterL: accounting-wise, either it cam efrom bitbet or it did not

16:52:05 kakobrekla: can you show me any evidence that it did not come from bitbet?

16:52:33 PeterL: if it did, then that amount would be a liability from bitbet to the maker of the transaction, right?

16:52:58 kakobrekla: missing the point.

16:53:17 PeterL: okay, then what is the point?

16:53:34 kakobrekla: can you show me the evidence that any bitbet payout made in last 3 years came from bitbet or not?

16:54:42 PeterL: well, davout sorted this out, he decided those were not from bitbet, the other payments over the last 3 years were

16:55:04 kakobrekla: sorted out how, crystal ball?

16:55:10 PeterL: apparently

16:55:24 PeterL: actually he, used the statements you signed

16:55:27 kakobrekla: i dont subscribe to that. or chinese konspiraci for that matter.

16:55:45 kakobrekla: the statements i signed do not contain anything relevant to bitbet payouts.

16:56:28 PeterL: there is nothing marking anything as "bitbet payout", so davout gets to use his own criteria

16:56:50 kakobrekla: once you understand that bitbets promise to bettors was "winning will magically appear on your address" things will get easier to comprehend.

16:57:45 PeterL: seems it was more of "winnings will magically appear on your address after bet is settled", people could be using these addresses for other stuff as well

16:58:06 kakobrekla: you did not read the logs

16:58:08 PeterL: anything before bet settlement date does not count as a bitbet payout

16:58:34 kakobrekla: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=15-04-2016

16:58:37 assbot: #bitcoin-assets log ... ( http://bit.ly/1S8Brgq )

16:59:06 kakobrekla: read until you understand.

17:00:57 kakobrekla: bitcoin payment does not have a 'purpose' field like you find it in SEPA bank transaction

17:01:40 kakobrekla: and i prolly dont have to remind you of 'customers have come to expect' mantra

17:01:43 PeterL: so where in the accounting do you stick the input to the transaction?

17:02:12 kakobrekla: what?

17:03:03 PeterL: where did the money come from?

17:03:18 kakobrekla: might as well be jesus. or buddha. or zeus.

17:03:34 kakobrekla: or that bum with qr code.

17:04:10 PeterL: if it came from bitbet, then you should sign the statement, if it didn't come from bitbet then you don't get to deduct it from payouts later

17:04:37 kakobrekla: are you on crack?

17:05:02 PeterL: no, are you?

17:05:59 kakobrekla: can you show me any payout in last 3 years came from bitbet?

17:07:23 kakobrekla: thought so.

17:09:19 PeterL: shouldn't it be obvious by looking at the addresses listed on bitbet, and seeing a transaction paying out to all of them at the time of the bet resoluiton?

17:09:32 kakobrekla: and this proves what exactly?

17:10:12 PeterL: to me, the second transaction looked like a bitbet payout, but YOU were the one who said "this is not a bitbet payout"

17:10:42 kakobrekla: it proves such and such tx was made at such time. it does not show who or why it made it.

17:10:53 kakobrekla: if you imply it does, your crack is good stuff.

17:11:02 PeterL: right, no proof

17:11:08 PeterL: not arguing with that

17:11:15 kakobrekla: good

17:11:53 kakobrekla: hence you now understand that the bb promise to bettors was "btc will magically appear on your address" and thats the end of it

17:13:28 PeterL: but if somebody had used an address for another purpose, you could claim "hey look, that address received X, so we don't have to pay out X to him" which is ludicrous

17:14:07 kakobrekla: on other words "the who and the why" was irrelevant for bets past 3 years. why would it be relevant now?

17:14:59 kakobrekla: by the bb design you should not use address for another purpose. is the knife manufacturer guilty for someone poking out his eye??

17:15:01 PeterL: bitbet has never decided who to pay based on what lands in thier addresses, only on what they send out themselfs

17:15:23 PeterL: so if bitbet did not send the transaction, they cannot claim it as a payment from bitbet

17:15:32 kakobrekla: bb never claimed what it sent out

17:15:51 kakobrekla: can you send me some of your crack?

17:16:04 PeterL: well, presumably you and mp were keeping track of those details, yes?

17:16:15 kakobrekla: l0l now you presume?

17:16:25 kakobrekla: i dont give two shits what you presume.

17:16:45 kakobrekla: either its there or it isnm.

17:16:47 kakobrekla: isnt

17:18:56 PeterL: If you owe me $10 and joe gives me a $5, you can't say "look, there's $5 in your wallet so now I only owe you $5"

17:19:14 kakobrekla: this is not fiat

17:19:29 kakobrekla: you are being insulting

17:19:52 PeterL: and nowhere on bitbet did it say "do not use addresses for anything else, payments you receive will be counted against your winnings"

17:20:14 kakobrekla: nowhere did it say "reuse your addresses" either

17:20:30 kakobrekla: its implied by the system

17:20:38 PeterL: the assumption is that people can use and reuse addresses as they see fit

17:20:54 kakobrekla: 'the consumers have come to expect'

17:21:05 kakobrekla: you should go over to #fraudsters with your nonsense

17:22:00 kakobrekla: and pl0x to stop with assumptions and presumptions here

17:22:26 PeterL: seems there were a bunch of people who reused an address for multiple bitbet bets

17:22:48 PeterL: are you going to count the winnings from bet A against the winnings for bet B?

17:23:02 kakobrekla: you dont read the logs eh

17:23:03 kakobrekla: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=16-04-2016#1444235

17:23:03 assbot: Logged on 16-04-2016 23:12:42; kakobrekla: but listen, say you break a leg and visit a doctor, there are three possible outcomes: 1. doctor doesnt do anything; 2. doctor plasters the broken leg; 3 doctor plasters whole body

17:23:27 PeterL: and you are arguing for ... 3?

17:23:43 kakobrekla: read motherfucker read

17:23:49 kakobrekla: im not sure why am i entertaining you even at this point

17:24:13 PeterL: I don't see the connection between doctor and bitbet, maybe you could clarify the options correlation?

17:24:30 kakobrekla: im not obliged to make you see.

17:24:46 PeterL: okay, at least say what the three options for bitbet are?

17:25:43 kakobrekla: take it easy, read, think, etc ... this is not kindergarten

17:27:19 *: kakobrekla wonders if kako and alf came from krypton or what the fuck is the deal here

17:27:52 PeterL: to me there is 1: txn was not from bitbet, mp not paid back, bets not withheld 2: txn from bitbet, pay mp back, withhold from bettors

17:28:19 kakobrekla: yeah i get it you are soft in the head.

17:28:52 PeterL: mp tried to get 2, davout took 1, I can't see where the option you are arguing for comes in?

17:29:12 kakobrekla: blind cant see - news at 11

17:33:35 PeterL: I'm just trying to figure out what you propose to do, withhold payouts from bettors but not pay mp?

17:36:03 kakobrekla: step one is stop davout from deliberately overpaying the silently pleased owners of certain bitcoin addresses

17:36:26 kakobrekla: yes the ship is going down, lets not try to deliberately drown any possible survivors shall we?

17:37:32 PeterL: you mean stop paying the rightful amount to people who happened to get a gift from mircea_popescu?

17:37:51 kakobrekla: would you put the pipe down for a minute jeebus

17:38:14 kakobrekla: can you show me evidence that was not bitbet payment?

17:38:40 PeterL: but if it is a bitbet payment then mp's liability claim is valid


17:39:05 PeterL: do you have evidence that it is a bitbet payment?

17:39:11 kakobrekla: its in the blockchain

17:39:31 PeterL: no, a payment is in the blockchain, the blockchain does not say "from bitbet"

17:39:40 kakobrekla: it does not say "not from bitbet"

17:39:45 PeterL: right

17:39:59 kakobrekla: and bitbets obligation is complete once amount is on address

17:40:02 kakobrekla: as per design

17:40:21 PeterL: but it could be from anywhere

17:40:39 kakobrekla: sure, from jesus, buddha, zeus nobody cares.

17:40:49 kakobrekla: this is circled debate

17:40:54 kakobrekla: and you dont seem to be getting it

17:40:59 PeterL: if my wallet sticks the change from a transaction into my bitbet payout addresses, does that count as a bitbet payout too?

17:41:14 kakobrekla: so i will be terminating it shortly if this nonsense continues

17:41:38 kakobrekla: you are forgetting what i wrote mere minutes ago

17:41:39 PeterL: alright, I will try to stop repeating

17:41:44 kakobrekla: pls put the crack pipe down for a bit

17:42:24 PeterL: so back to your proposed outcome, what happens after you withhold the money, wouldn't you have to pay mp back the 17 btc?

17:42:52 PeterL: or are you going to force him to make that be a "generous donation to bitbet"

17:42:53 kakobrekla: i already covered this

17:43:25 kakobrekla: and no i am not going to link it to it AGAIN

17:45:58 davout: kakobrekla: this is ridiculous

17:46:10 davout: since when is absence of proof, the proof of absence?

17:46:48 davout: seriously, re-read yourself in three years. prepare for some facepalming

17:46:53 kakobrekla: bbs promises have been satisfied (to a point)

17:47:13 PeterL: you can't prove there is no god, therefore my god is real!

17:47:58 davout: kakobrekla: srsly, stop the idiocy and either sign, or don't sign on this expense

17:49:46 kakobrekla: the idiocy is overpaying the silently pleased bush winners thrice

17:50:18 kakobrekla: better destination for btc would be 1bitcoineater

17:51:14 PeterL: <kakobrekla> this is not fiat << in fiat you need a written explanation for every deposit that hits your account. This is bitcoin, and I should be able to send money into whichever address I want, and it should not affect your debt to me

17:52:03 kakobrekla: what you think you should has no impact on the design of a certain service and the implication arising from that fact

17:52:52 kakobrekla: davout i _know_ you will not change that shit. i still want it to be published on relevant avenues.

17:54:01 kakobrekla: its similar to when i said to mp 'i have no problem for you to publish you interpretation of events' re chinese konspiraci

17:54:10 kakobrekla: your*

17:54:31 kakobrekla: this is in fact a public matter.

17:56:58 davout: you still haven't answered the question of: "should mp be allowed to deduct some money from mpex withdrawals to these addresses"

17:57:56 PeterL: <kakobrekla> what you think you should has no impact << fine, let me rephrase: This is bitcoin, and I can send money into whichever address I want, and it does not affect your debt to me.

17:59:03 PeterL: since davout denied the liability as bitbet's then yes, mp should be allowed to deduct payments from mpex withdrawals to those addresses.

18:00:04 kakobrekla: theres dozens of questions you havent answered me either but anyway, his service doesnt produce any evidence of withdrawals or respective payments at any point so it seems his customers could or even should be expecting it!

18:00:39 davout: this is not about evidence, this is about showing glaring holes in your "logic"

18:03:11 kakobrekla: there rather big distinction between bitbet and mpex . if his withdrawal statement go "this is signed statement that x will get y btc" it would be a different story. instead of that you get served "thanks for your withdrawal"

18:04:11 kakobrekla: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=19-04-2016#1444424 < bitbet never played that game

18:04:11 assbot: Logged on 19-04-2016 17:57:56; PeterL: <kakobrekla> what you think you should has no impact << fine, let me rephrase: This is bitcoin, and I can send money into whichever address I want, and it does not affect your debt to me.

18:04:47 kakobrekla: there was never "this tx is the tx that affects your debt to me"

18:05:07 kakobrekla: it could be *any* tx

18:05:25 kakobrekla: even if poseidon made it.

18:06:45 kakobrekla: (arguably this is/was a flaw in the system, but here we are)

18:07:35 kakobrekla: pehrpas the second j.bush tx would not have happened if this would be different too.

18:11:39 kakobrekla: !up asciilifeform

18:11:42 asciilifeform: ty kakobrekla.

18:11:57 kakobrekla: naturally

18:12:20 asciilifeform: everything kako said re the functioning of bbet in re what determined an obligation, and its satisfaction, is entirely correct

18:12:30 asciilifeform: does anyone have an actual argument against any of it ?

18:12:32 asciilifeform: or just blather

18:15:55 davout: asciilifeform: did you personnally check every single payment made to a winning address, and check that was never any external payment made to it before the winnings were paid, and after the bet was resolved?

18:16:55 asciilifeform: when i personally used the site - yes

18:17:03 davout: lolk

18:17:33 davout: kakobrekla: answer the question, in your system, should mp be allowed to withhold some money from a certain set of addresses on the grounds of the contentious transaction?

18:18:00 asciilifeform: 'contentious' is a framing term here.

18:18:09 asciilifeform: what is contentious about already-motherfucking-paid

18:18:24 davout: asciilifeform: sufficiently contentious to drive bitbet into the wall apparently

18:18:57 asciilifeform: davout: it is what comes with using 'consumer came to expect' instead of actual definitions.

18:19:11 asciilifeform: for instance, apparently no one ever nailed down what ~exactly~ it means to pay someone, or to be paid.

18:19:14 davout: asciilifeform: that some payment has occurred is not the question, who shall be the beneficiary of its effects *is*

18:19:51 davout: asciilifeform: 'paying' has a 'payee', and a 'payer'. now who is the 'payer' ?

18:20:45 asciilifeform: sorta why kakobrekla was demanding an mp proclamation to the effect of 'i was NOT attempting to pay the bettors with this tx'

18:20:48 asciilifeform: 'i sent it for lulz'

18:21:21 davout: asciilifeform: the 'purpose' of a payment is not part of the {'payee', 'payer'} set

18:21:39 asciilifeform: because if he WAS sending it with the intent of paying bbet users, it is now disingenuous to claim that it is 'unrelated', like gold dropped by happenstance on their heads by archangel gabriel or wtf

18:22:50 davout: i do not claim it is unrelated, now if mp hypothetically admitted to fucking up and doing it in the name of bitbet, and the statement is not signed by kakobrekla, would mp not be in the right to recoup whatever money he can from these addresses?

18:22:54 asciilifeform: say i owe davout tenbux

18:23:10 asciilifeform: the next morning, he finds a brick thrown by catapult landing in his yard, with tenbux attached

18:23:16 asciilifeform: i say to him the next day, 'i paid'

18:23:44 asciilifeform: unless, e.g., mircea_popescu steps up and proclaims 'NO, the bastard is fooling you, i threw the brick as a birthday gift', or anyone else steps up,

18:23:48 asciilifeform: davout has been paid.

18:23:53 asciilifeform: and my debt - settled.

18:23:57 kakobrekla: alf poetry.

18:24:29 asciilifeform: mp's counter-argument to this gedankenexperiment, last time i presented it, was, iirc, 'fuckyou'

18:24:41 asciilifeform: mega-argument.

18:26:14 asciilifeform: that being so, it still matters whether mp was acting as an authorized bbettronicist under the flag

18:26:46 asciilifeform: iirc davout concluded that he was not ?

18:27:21 davout: i just read the contract

18:28:44 davout: kakobrekla wishes to recoup some money because he "feels it's right", but would not really like to have to own up to "when someone fucks up on the job, the loss is on the company"

18:29:22 asciilifeform: question is whether mp was 'on the job' or not, no ?

18:29:54 davout: asciilifeform: say you make an infinite loop in some code when sitting on your stake, cpu overheats, building burns down. who pays?

18:30:09 asciilifeform: $corp's insurer.

18:30:55 davout: if he was on the job fine, kako signs the statement, loss is on the company. kako doesn't want to sign? fine, mp was acting outside of bitbet, and gets to benefit from the claim arising from this payment

18:31:22 davout: by, for example, withholding some money to select addresses from mpex withdrawals

18:31:34 asciilifeform: logical.

18:31:55 davout: without owing anyone else than the directly involved parties any sort of "proof that something didn't happen"

18:31:57 asciilifeform: but not, then, from bbet payout, aha

18:32:07 davout: obviously

18:32:15 asciilifeform: so where does kakobrekla disagree with davout ?

18:32:39 davout: what happens if money's withheld from bb's payout, and someone comes up "mp withheld money from my mpex withdraw, on the same grounds" ?

18:32:46 davout: wtf happens then kakobrekla? ^

18:33:14 davout: !up whaack

18:34:36 asciilifeform: as i understand, the btctronic definition of 'pay' is not compatible with the traditional meatspace one.

18:34:39 davout: and please stop with the "doctor" example, wrt bitbet i am a butcher ffs

18:34:45 asciilifeform: because it does not feature an apparent payer.

18:35:08 asciilifeform: when bbet promised to pay, it promised, afaik, 'amount in THIS ADDR will INCREASE'

18:35:22 asciilifeform: rather than 'addr publicly associated with bbet will send to THIS ADDR'

18:35:41 asciilifeform: this, i think, is the core of kakobrekla's argument ?

18:35:57 asciilifeform: that mp's payment cannot be mathematically tied to mp

18:35:59 asciilifeform: OR to bbet

18:36:10 asciilifeform: it may as well be from archangel gabriel or satan

18:36:19 asciilifeform: and that all bbet promised is that there will be A payment

18:36:27 asciilifeform: a condition which was partially fulfilled by mp's tx.

18:36:37 kakobrekla: even if mps service would go as far as giving out a signed statement of 'x amt to y addy' he could technically claim an existing tx as withdrawal to that address was his payment but it doesnt even go that far.

18:36:43 asciilifeform: kakobrekla do i grasp your idea here ?

18:36:51 asciilifeform: kakobrekla aha

18:37:09 kakobrekla: how can a manufacturer of knifes prevent someone poking his eyes out?

18:37:19 kakobrekla: or forks.

18:38:47 kakobrekla: or predict someone will be using those as anal insertions.

18:38:52 kakobrekla: brb

18:58:26 kakobrekla: !up whaack

18:58:31 kakobrekla: no you are not banned

19:01:24 whaack: k thx, wasn't sure why davout's !up didn't work. anyways, if I place a bet on bitbet where I request winnings to go to address A I should make sure no one else is going to create a txn that pays address A because if they send me an amount >= my winnings then bitbet will consider their debt settled? has this been done in the past?

19:04:26 kakobrekla: anyway i dont think this debate will see an end or bare fruit of change to davouts payout list. i guess the more important question from now on is how do you fix this. by claiming certain inexact (low/high s) tx is serving your purpose by signing it with outputs or implicitly by using unique addresses or what?

19:05:55 asciilifeform: kakobrekla: one way is by promising 'will pay to addr X and will sign string X with the addr from which will pay'

19:06:07 kakobrekla: whaack i can not speak of how bitbet is going to be acting in the future

19:06:07 davout: how about kakobrekla gives whaack a straight answer ?

19:06:16 asciilifeform: another would be to keep the addr to be paid to, a secret between the two transacters

19:06:43 kakobrekla: but so far the only way to be sure was to use unique address each time

19:06:48 kakobrekla: ^^ re bb

19:07:23 kakobrekla: and ofc not using it for other purposes while bet is not settled

19:07:49 kakobrekla: is the answer satisfactory?

19:08:23 davout: yes, but that particular point is now claimed by you, in hindsight, as obvious.

19:08:43 davout: then why do i not see it mentioned in the fas for example?

19:08:49 davout: *faq

19:09:30 davout: can you guarantee i can not find a single address for which there exists an unrelated transaction between the bet resolution and actual payout?

19:09:31 kakobrekla: idk mp never put it there.

19:09:50 davout: kakobrekla: mp was only 50% of the bitbet partners

19:10:00 kakobrekla: so its only 50% my fault

19:10:08 asciilifeform: davout: the previous-payment thing does not exist unless claimed.

19:10:47 asciilifeform: if mp were here, he would prolly cough up the 18th c. blackstone term for this.

19:11:33 whaack: seems reasonable to me, I don't think there's anything wrong with the policy "we only guarantee that your given address, A, will increase by X btc at some point if you win." Of course you can always deny the second part of the question as to whether or not you've punished people for not understanding this concept.

19:13:03 davout: whaack: there's nothing wrong with the policy itself, but as far as i can tell, it was never publicly advertised as the policy bitbet used

19:13:26 kakobrekla: do you see written on kitchen knifes : "do not insert in you asshole" ?

19:13:34 kakobrekla: your*

19:13:34 asciilifeform: iirc 'what bbet does' was NEVER fully specified.

19:13:41 asciilifeform: so yes, as kakobrekla describes.

19:14:21 davout: yeah, reusing addresses sure is as bad as inserting knife in asshole

19:14:24 whaack: another would be to keep the addr to be paid to, a secret between the two transacters << it doesn't have to be a secret. as a bettor I don't care whether or not bitbet gets lucky cuz a random shmuck sends me my btc winnings as long as the shmuck doesn't expect anything in return from me or consider a debt he owes me is cleared

19:14:54 kakobrekla: oh wow you should be a pope or something

19:16:46 kakobrekla: even if the shmuck expects something i dont see how this would be enforceable unless you stabbed yourself with address reuse

19:17:39 davout: why is address reuse so bad again?

19:18:56 kakobrekla: if JB bettors all would have used uniques we would not be having this discussing probably

19:19:05 davout: because it was explicitly forbidden by bitbet??

19:19:17 davout: OH WAIT!11 IT WASN'T!!11

19:19:53 whaack: so bitbet wasn't stupid enough to ever overpay people then right?

19:19:59 kakobrekla: like forking your eyes out is not forbidden by the fork

19:21:00 whaack: everytime someone reused address on bitbet, and had like half their bet paid out by some third party, bitbet only sent the other half owed, correct?

19:21:23 kakobrekla: or driving yourself in a wall is not forbidden by the car or road or the fuel you put in it.

19:21:51 davout: kakobrekla: no but seriously, explain to me like i'm five, or like i'm a fucking golden retriever for the matter, why, precisely, should address reuse be considered as obviously stupid?

19:22:12 davout: it does not result in death, or popped out eyes after all

19:22:27 asciilifeform: davout: it results in IT BEING DISPUTABLE WHO PAID YOU

19:22:39 kakobrekla: davout because bitbet does not specify "this tx is bb paying you"

19:23:02 davout: kakobrekla: so how can you ask anyone seriously "prove that bitbet didn't pay?"

19:23:15 davout: if it's not even clear to you what paying even means?

19:23:20 kakobrekla: its implied it did pay by tx and amount in the blockchain

19:23:31 kakobrekla: its not implied it did not pay

19:23:51 davout: there's no such implication

19:24:04 kakobrekla: because the nonexisting 'reason' field says so

19:25:00 davout: if bitbet had paid, it would show in the accounting, however, as you refused to consider a particular action made in the name of bitbet, it does not exist from the point of view of bitbet's books

19:25:22 davout: mp's books may or may not have a claim on some addresses written in them

19:25:25 kakobrekla: again, my statements never ever ever ever ever ever covered payouts.

19:25:43 davout: such claim can no simultaneously exist in two sets of accounting books

19:26:03 asciilifeform: davout: it can, if the definition of 'pay' is sufficiently broken.

19:26:11 asciilifeform: where a payment can exist without a known payer.

19:26:25 kakobrekla: also technically i never signed a statement why i refused to sign bitbets last statement.

19:26:30 kakobrekla: so the action is not 'particular'

19:27:54 davout: you did not, however, make any other complaint about anything else

19:28:24 *: kakobrekla wonders if davout wants to suffocate him yet

19:28:52 davout: but if you want to make a signed complaint about some other stuff, or explicitly request that the extra 17 btc payment be considered made by bitbet, be my guest and sign up

19:29:32 kakobrekla: the argument is it doesnt matter where the 17 comes from, i thought this was freaking clear by now.

19:29:43 kakobrekla: even whaack understood it.

19:29:45 kakobrekla: !up whaack

19:29:54 davout: i understand what you are saying, i'm just saying it doesn't work that way

19:30:01 kakobrekla: because?

19:30:10 kakobrekla: it was not in the faq?

19:30:18 kakobrekla: this is the end argument?

19:30:31 asciilifeform: faq did not specify where the btc would be paid FROM iirc.

19:30:32 whaack: to be fair, I always used uniques just in case of this

19:30:39 kakobrekla: tada!!!!

19:30:41 asciilifeform: it specified that it WOULD BE PAID

19:30:42 asciilifeform: aha

19:30:47 *: whaack never won a bet anyways :(

19:30:54 kakobrekla: lol

19:30:56 whaack: everytime someone reused address on bitbet, and had like half their bet paid out by some third party, bitbet only sent the other half owed, correct? << I still wish you would answer this.

19:30:58 kakobrekla: sorry to hear.

19:31:02 asciilifeform: ftr i lost ~all of my bets.

19:31:09 asciilifeform: in fact i lost most of the coin i ever had on bbet.

19:31:11 asciilifeform: it was great !

19:31:12 davout: because i don't intend to ever run a business in such a way that i'd use previous incoming transactions as liability deductions, just because "no one can't prove i didn't pay" ffs

19:31:24 kakobrekla: whaack http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=16-04-2016#1444235

19:31:24 assbot: Logged on 16-04-2016 23:12:42; kakobrekla: but listen, say you break a leg and visit a doctor, there are three possible outcomes: 1. doctor doesnt do anything; 2. doctor plasters the broken leg; 3 doctor plasters whole body

19:31:51 davout: kakobrekla: seriously, just answer the question, and put this idiocy in broad daylight

19:31:53 asciilifeform: davout: so you like overpaying folks ?

19:32:18 davout: asciilifeform: this is not about 'like'

19:32:42 asciilifeform: davout: how do you, in particular, decide whether or not you've been paid some coin you were owed ?

19:32:58 asciilifeform: describe, for my education

19:33:07 kakobrekla: whaack it afaik never underpaid for that reason, not because it couldnt but because it was a fair betting avenue. but fair goes both ways!

19:33:52 davout: kakobrekla: well yes, fair does go both way, and if you want to claim stuff, you also have to account for the payment, and give that money back to mp, in addition to eating another 4 btc loss

19:34:31 asciilifeform: davout: as i understand, kakobrekla's argument is that the bettors WERE PAID ~without a decidable payer~

19:34:37 kakobrekla: yes.

19:34:39 asciilifeform: and there is not an mp in the mix

19:34:46 asciilifeform: for all we know, angel gabriel paid them.

19:34:49 kakobrekla: yes.

19:35:20 davout: asciilifeform: it's "without decidable payer" when kakobrekla wants to claim some money back, but the payer seems to be very clearly identified when it comes to deciding who's liable. how funny

19:35:34 asciilifeform: and that bbet never promised that 'bbet will pay, demonstrably from bbet' but that 'you will be paid'

19:35:38 davout: and by funny, i obvioulsy mean "absolutely fucking pathetic"

19:36:12 asciilifeform: davout: remind me, did mp ever formally sign a proclamation that the tx is his ?

19:36:23 asciilifeform: and what its purpose was

19:37:09 davout: asciilifeform: why don't you just go ask him?

19:37:23 kakobrekla: because the answer is 'fuck you'

19:37:46 davout: kakobrekla: and so what is your conclusion?

19:38:38 kakobrekla: that we are letting possible survivors from the shipwreck die

19:38:56 davout: the only survivor of the butchery, is the butcher

19:39:07 asciilifeform: i dun see any survivers. bbet is dead to me now.

19:39:26 davout: and there will be no "extra survivors". if any money's withheld, it goes to mp

19:39:59 kakobrekla: i already expressed my feelings toward that

19:40:22 davout: and if money's withheld that means bitbet chooses to own up, that kakobrekla finally changed his mind when it didn't mattered anymore, and that, on top of the clawback, mp is owed another ~4btc

19:40:31 davout: *matter

19:40:39 asciilifeform: davout: maybe the 17 ought to go to satan

19:40:42 asciilifeform: or angel gabriel

19:40:46 kakobrekla: or zeus

19:40:49 asciilifeform: aha.

19:40:54 asciilifeform: vishnu.

19:43:09 davout: kakobrekla: i'm out, let me know when you're done derping around here and if you feel like putting your gpg signature on something that declares mp was acting in bitbet capacity for this transaction

19:43:40 kakobrekla: how the fuck could i possibly know that

19:43:55 davout: it's not something you 'know'

19:44:00 davout: it's something you 'decide'

19:44:19 davout: in the same vein of 'deciding' to 'not sign the statement'

19:44:22 asciilifeform: davout: you are trying to shoehorn kakobrekla's argument into a box he did not make it for.

19:44:40 kakobrekla: i think that is it yes.

19:44:41 asciilifeform: as i understand, his position is that 1) bbet bettors were paid 2) there is NO DEFINED PAYER

19:44:46 kakobrekla: probably lost patience with me.

19:44:51 asciilifeform: literally, the answer is null

19:44:56 davout: except i work in that box, i have accounting books, i have a contract, that's it

19:45:19 davout: asciilifeform: pretty much, contract explicitly says "transaction is void"

19:45:28 asciilifeform: davout: where ?

19:45:40 asciilifeform: it may very well be void for the purpose of paying mp 17 btc

19:45:46 asciilifeform: but NOT void for the purpose of 'bettors were paid'

19:45:52 asciilifeform: this, as i understand, is kakobrekla's position

19:45:58 davout: asciilifeform: "Any such decision, measure, action, activity or agreement which fails to obtain unanimous agreement of all BitBet representatives is void and unenforceable. "

19:46:22 asciilifeform: davout: whether mp actually sent the 17 btc, and what was in his head, is SEPARATE question from 'were bettors paid'

19:46:34 asciilifeform: bettors - were paid.

19:46:39 asciilifeform: anyone with a running blockchain can see this.

19:46:44 kakobrekla: correct.

19:47:09 davout: no one ever demonstrated that being a bettor is exclusive from having an mpex account

19:47:20 asciilifeform: how does mpex play into this ?

19:47:44 kakobrekla: perhaps poseidon sent the 17 just before mp and mp claimed he did it twice.

19:48:00 asciilifeform: aha.

19:48:38 davout: asciilifeform: because mpex may now have claims on these addresses

19:48:57 asciilifeform: davout: if mp conclusively nails down that it was him who paid

19:49:01 kakobrekla: by this argument mpex may have claims on any address

19:49:01 davout: there's a reason double entry accounting was invented during the fucking renaissance and stuck around since then

19:49:17 davout: asciilifeform: burden of proof is certainly not on mp

19:49:47 asciilifeform: davout: without said proof, we have a 'bettors were paid' but not a 'who'

19:50:36 asciilifeform: but we HAVE the 'bettors were paid'

19:50:59 asciilifeform: holy shit, pankkake ?!

19:51:02 davout: maybe it was 'mpex-account-owners were paid', how'd you figure?

19:51:11 davout: hory shet

19:51:38 davout: pankkake: ohai

19:51:51 kakobrekla: i would like to see such claim signed by mp

19:52:20 davout: you want to see such a claim signed by mp, yet you refuse to sign anything mentioning the extra 17 btc payment

19:52:45 kakobrekla: i dont have the private keys of those addresses to sign it with

19:52:55 davout: your gpg key.

19:53:09 kakobrekla: and sign what ? that noone knows where the 17 btc came from ?

19:53:10 davout: use it, sign the statement mentioning the extra 17 btc payment

19:53:23 davout: oh wait, you didn't want the company to be liable for it

19:53:41 kakobrekla: naturally, there is no evidence mp paid it twice.

19:53:42 davout: but now you'd still like the company to get some of the leftover crumbs

19:53:51 kakobrekla: in the name of the company or name of jesus.

19:54:06 asciilifeform: davout: understand, payment CAN apparently exist without a payer.

19:54:29 asciilifeform: davout: you have arbitrarily defiend a payer for it. but it is not in fact a known value.

19:54:39 asciilifeform: *defined

19:54:57 asciilifeform: i personally believe mp when he said 'this was me'

19:55:00 asciilifeform: but apparently kakobrekla does not

19:55:08 asciilifeform: so so is saying 'zeus paid'

19:55:11 kakobrekla: believe has very little to do with it.

19:55:22 davout: kakobrekla is more than welcome to ask mp, if he finds his way to #fraudsters that is

19:55:25 kakobrekla: either he shows mathematically he did or he didnt.

19:55:30 asciilifeform: well yes, kakobrekla wants to nail this down for the record.

19:55:35 asciilifeform: as is imho proper.

19:55:38 davout: sure

19:56:04 asciilifeform: kakobrekla: did you try asking him for the signed declaration ?

19:56:28 kakobrekla: we havent been speaking for a while.

19:56:37 davout: kakobrekla: and since you can't mathematically prove bitbet sent it, you kind of have no choice than push this 'money-was-already-sent-to-you-also-please-address-reuse-is-bad-mkay' bs

19:57:05 davout: kakobrekla: we went from 'dead', to 'havent spoken in a while' i guess that's an improvement

19:57:26 kakobrekla: davout this can be applied to any previous resolution and payout but it was not. not because its not possible, but because of fair game.

19:57:36 kakobrekla: well i dont speak with dead people.

19:57:58 davout: fair game also means you don't get to claim stuff you didn't actually disburse anything for

19:58:14 davout: he gets to claim, bitbet doesn't

19:58:21 asciilifeform: davout: the conclusion that 'address reuse is RETARDED iff your only claim on being paid is that the addr fills up'

19:58:25 kakobrekla: fair also means that people dont get overpaid shit twice or thrice.

19:58:28 asciilifeform: ^

19:58:48 davout: kakobrekla: where was this 'fair' when donations were made to bitbet?

19:59:04 asciilifeform: davout: the claim here is that the 17 btc were dropped by zeus UNTIL mp proves otherwise.

19:59:05 kakobrekla: where is fair when people put knifes up their ass

19:59:07 asciilifeform: as i understand.

19:59:21 davout: were you arguing at that point that it would be 'fair' to refund instead of consider donated?

19:59:46 davout: asciilifeform: but that's bullshit, absence of proof is not proof of absence

20:00:12 asciilifeform: davout: in this case, absence of proof --> payment but no payer.

20:00:19 kakobrekla: at the begining of bbet i was pro refund but mp thought its too much clerical work and folks should be learned not to fuck up

20:00:29 kakobrekla: i guess the learn not to fuck up goes one way only with mp

20:01:10 davout: apparently you still fail to connect the dots between your actions and their consequences

20:01:17 kakobrekla: anyway the term os service are such and such, the blade is sharp so and so

20:01:45 kakobrekla: what end user does with blade - not up to me

20:01:47 asciilifeform: davout: the semantic issue that is being trampled here is imho important - bbet never promised that IT will pay, only that addr A WILL BE PAID

20:01:58 kakobrekla: correct

20:02:00 asciilifeform: and yes, this was dumb

20:02:08 kakobrekla: yes it was a mistake.

20:02:08 asciilifeform: but from it follows that the bettors WERE PAID

20:03:01 kakobrekla: just like mpex continues to be dumb by signing "ty for your withdrawal" instead of specifying amount and destination

21:20:23 kakobrekla: !up schmidty

21:20:58 kakobrekla: i havent upped unknowns for ages if ever even

21:21:24 kakobrekla: and it will last only until i go to re-disable joins

21:22:09 schmidty: kakobrekla: hopefully i wont let you down. i mostly still just lurk here :)

21:22:49 kakobrekla: well thats inline with what we do here apparently. practice silence.

21:23:13 schmidty: 'speak only if it improves upon the silence' and whatnot

21:23:31 kakobrekla: i actually agree with that

21:24:59 kakobrekla: !s schmidty

21:25:00 assbot: 26 results for 'schmidty' : http://s.b-a.link/?q=schmidty

21:25:15 kakobrekla: hey apparently you broke silence before

21:25:45 kakobrekla: ok then all set

21:31:27 PeterL: the simple solution is to have payout for each bet made from the incoming bet payments, that way you can point to the blockchain -these bets came in these txn, went out as winnings in those txn

21:56:12 kakobrekla: unless you are mp where paying out includes fucking a goats ass shaped turnip and costs 0.5 btc per tx