|
I thought he already had a new name. It should still be changed to "techno-utopian garbage " though.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think it's some technically possible but practically impossible thing bitcoiners like to fantasize about based on a thing where you set up a transaction that only sends if some third-party does a thing, which is basically a semi-automated escrow. i am a total sperglord and even i don't want my life to consist of fulfilling terms of contracts to the letter seriously how broken do you have to be to want that
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 00:17
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Who What Now posted:I thought he already had a new name. It should still be changed to "techno-utopian garbage " though. He was posting under the Reality Apologist account for a while, though I forget why exactly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:He was posting under the Reality Apologist account for a while, though I forget why exactly. He inherited it from some other technoevangelist or something, and probably thought he could do some ~deep cover~ posting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:He was posting under the Reality Apologist account for a while, though I forget why exactly. He lost his password or couldn't reset it because he didn't have his old email address any more. It was some basic tech thing but it's loving funny considering how much he likes talking about techno bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:He lost his password or couldn't reset it because he didn't have his old email address any more. It was some basic tech thing but it's loving funny considering how much he likes talking about techno bullshit. That is the best thing I've heard in a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
don't forget dilettante something or whatever the gently caress his name was who was an eripsa acolyte who unironically wore steampunk goggles and a loving top hat and might have been even less grounded in reality than the man himself those two were peas in a techno-psychotic pod
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
For people wanting a better picture of how they expect "smart contracts" to work - you know how in MMOs you might have an auction house or whatever where you can set a minimum price to sell 6 pig's heads or whatever and then it automatically sends the items to someone when the price or trade is fufilled? They think they can do that, but with real life items, using a website. Just put your artisianal steampunk goggles somewhere, set terms, and some system magically handles the transfer of ownership etc for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Peel posted:What is a 'smart contract'? eXXon posted:It looks like a pretty convincing ad for Diaspora, actually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I originally read it as 'smart contacts' and assumed that it would allow me to have groups of contacts over different devices or something, so one of my circles of friends can call me without needing my number, or other services we use get automatically linked, or something. I dunno exactly what it would be but It would be facebook. There is nothing wrong with smart contracts, by the way. Say I've purchased some heroin and the seller guaranteed it to be of mediocre quality. Turns out it's not and now I'm dead. In the old days there would be no repercussions because I'm dead and my computer is encrypted and I don't know anyone in real life I could trust to carry out my last will and testament. Well, the smart contract begs to differ and now the guy has a scammer tag. The system works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
The smart contract thing is funny since aren't basically all EULAs and contracts made up by non lawyers basically not enforceable under the law?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:The smart contract thing is funny since aren't basically all EULAs and contracts made up by non lawyers basically not enforceable under the law? Nah, lots of basic contracts are easy to enforce, because they don't get up to anything complicated. There's not a lot to argue your way out of for SmithCo agrees to deliver 50 tons of sorghum to Bob LLC in return for $2600 bank transfer every quarter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Cakebaker posted:There is nothing wrong with smart contracts, by the way. Say I've purchased some heroin and the seller guaranteed it to be of mediocre quality. Turns out it's not and now I'm dead. In the old days there would be no repercussions because I'm dead and my computer is encrypted and I don't know anyone in real life I could trust to carry out my last will and testament. Well, the smart contract begs to differ and now the guy has a scammer tag. The system works. Can my smart contract program do a chargeback if it detects I haven't logged in for a day and concludes I died from tainted drugs, or is the lack of chargebacks a feature to protect the usability of the currency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:The smart contract thing is funny since aren't basically all EULAs and contracts made up by non lawyers basically not enforceable under the law? EULAs are nowhere near as hard to enforce as this. Contracts made by non-lawyers will usually stand up eventually, just be much more expensive to litigate. What a lawyer is doing when they write a contract is making it very hard for the other side to confuse the issue enough that you have to have a full trial, instead of the judge taking a look at the contract and throwing one of the parties out on their rear end. For example: Nintendo Kid posted:Nah, lots of basic contracts are easy to enforce, because they don't get up to anything complicated. There's not a lot to argue your way out of for SmithCo agrees to deliver 50 tons of sorghum to Bob LLC in return for $2600 bank transfer every quarter. This is not as easy as you'd think: what counts as delivery, what counts as sorghum of acceptable quality? Especially the latter. A judge will enforce the contract but you'll have to have a full trial over both issues instead of "here is the contract, here is the quality he delivered, it doesn't meet the carefully specified quality". The judge will have to have both sides present evidence about what the contract means instead of just saying "it means what is written here".
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Diaspora is pretty cool as a concept, but nobody uses it. ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/Snuffleupagus uses it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can my smart contract program do a chargeback if it detects I haven't logged in for a day and concludes I died from tainted drugs, or is the lack of chargebacks a feature to protect the usability of the currency. The lack of chargebacks is a feature to protect captains of industry from the unwashed customer. Just look at all the businesses who get slightly inconvenienced by chargebacks today!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can my smart contract program do a chargeback if it detects I haven't logged in for a day and concludes I died from tainted drugs, or is the lack of chargebacks a feature to protect the usability of the currency. If you simply went camping or had your phone stolen and now have an angry drug dealer hunting you, well you have a choice in smart contracts and it looks like you made the wrong one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
It's sort of like Bitcoin where the technology works just fine (based on what I got out of the Synereo guys, it's functional although not super novel) but for its guarantees to be remotely strong relies on third party behavior it can't guarantee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Krotera posted:It's sort of like Bitcoin where the technology works just fine (based on what I got out of the Synereo guys, it's functional although not super novel) but for its guarantees to be remotely strong relies on third party behavior it can't guarantee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Krotera posted:It's sort of like Bitcoin where the technology works just fine (based on what I got out of the Synereo guys, it's functional although not super novel) but for its guarantees to be remotely strong relies on third party behavior it can't guarantee. It's completely against any basic principle of cryptography, because whoever controls 51% of the computing power wins. The whole point of cryptography, I'm told, is that it should not take (n/2)+1 computing power to defeat it, but a disproportionately higher amount. Oh and not dumb make-work forever just because, but encryption followed by doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It's completely against any basic principle of cryptography, because whoever controls 51% of the computing power wins. The whole point of cryptography, I'm told, is that it should not take (n/2)+1 computing power to defeat it, but a disproportionately higher amount. Oh and not dumb make-work forever just because, but encryption followed by doing nothing. Good cryptography is along the lines of "takes your computer under a second to encrypt it, would take longer than the age of the universe if you converted every atom into a computer to brute-force"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Good cryptography is along the lines of "takes your computer under a second to encrypt it, would take longer than the age of the universe if you converted every atom into a computer to brute-force" Clearly the solution is to convert the entire universe into buttcoin miners 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Good cryptography is along the lines of "takes your computer under a second to encrypt it, would take longer than the age of the universe if you converted every atom into a computer to brute-force" If you start from the premise that all central authority is bad, even a committee or shareholders, I'm not sure how else you could better do it. (Not that this is necessarily a good premise to start from.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It's completely against any basic principle of cryptography, because whoever controls 51% of the computing power wins. The whole point of cryptography, I'm told, is that it should not take (n/2)+1 computing power to defeat it, but a disproportionately higher amount. Oh and not dumb make-work forever just because, but encryption followed by doing nothing. For a system like Bitcoin I'm not sure you can do better than 51%. You can make checking if a transaction log is valid much harder than that but afaik you can't make checking if a transaction log is the canonical one any harder than that. It's broken but AFAIK Bitcoin is still making the guarantees it promised to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Cakebaker posted:It would be facebook. The biggest flaw in smart contracts is "how does the computer know you're dead"? No one will sell on a site where the customer's money is automatically refunded if they don't come online and press a "Not Dead" button every day, since bitcoiners have continuously proven themselves too scammy for that, but anything else relying on people's input is basically just standard escrow. "Smart contracts", as bitcoiners conceive them, are distinguished by the computer itself deciding whether the terms of the contract are met, without any direct human input. This is why smart contracts are solely theoretical and wildly impractical, because a bitcoin-style "smart contract" involves the contractchain AI finding your death certificate on the publicrecordschain and automatically updating the seller's profile with a scammer tag, then uploading the seller's details to your favorite private police company's policechain database (but only after checking your wallet records to see if you've been keeping up with your protection payments), then downloading your will from the willchain and automatically distributing all of your possessions (somehow) to the people in it, and then pulling the last football game's results from the sportschain and pulling twenty bucks from your best friend's wallet and giving it to you because they bet wrong on the game's results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
So I saw a thing in the news today:The BBC posted:Turkey: Mayor replaces giant robot statue with T-Rex Eripsa, I'm sorry I ever doubted you. Your ideas were simply before their time. Sign me up for whatever it is you're peddling now.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:My idea for a Marble Economy is that the distribution of marbles should be a function of the flow of marbles. Right now, marbles are allocated not on the basis of need for marbles, but on the basis of no marbles. One marble can be exchanged for one marble, so the marbles end up where the marbles are. But marbles are needed where empty stomachs exist, and there is no guarantee that wherever an empty stomach exists there will be a marble to exchange for that stomach. Often, marbles are completely absent where marbles are needed most, and so a marble-based economy may not even recognize the failure of distribution of marbles at all. The alternative is to distribute marbles based on the flow of Marble; since Marble can't be faked, there will be less room for these kinds of oversights and marble inefficiencies. Any person with an empty stomach can still exchange that stomach for Marble, so if we can track where the Marble is flowing we have a better shot of making sure the stomach get there. I don't expect that Marble is a perfect indicator of value, but my view is that it will be a hell of a lot more accurate than money[...] Now, this is incoherent and insane, so a goon (I can't remember who) popped up in a PYF thread somewhere and offered this clarification, which really sold me on the concept: some goon posted:marbles marbles. Right now, marbles marbles, marbles. One marble one marble, marbles marbles. marbles marbles, a marble empty stomach a marble to exchange for that stomach. marbles marbles, marble-based economy failure of distribution of marbles. marbles Marble; Marble can't be faked, marble inefficiencies. An person Marble, Marble the cheeseburgers. Marble, a hell of a lot more accurate than money.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:Now, this is incoherent and insane, so a goon (I can't remember who) popped up in a PYF thread somewhere and offered this clarification, which really sold me on the concept: It's funny though, because it makes way more sense if you just straight up say "pay attention to thing number go up! go up good! no pay attention thing, number go down! go down BAD!".
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Marble Economy, Exhibit A:
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
The idea of people walking around just constantly pelting everything with marbles and making a disastrous mess everywhere they go and giving one another massive bruises and welts still makes me laugh to this day.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Agreed, but the 51% and the strong cryptography are only tangentially related though. The strong cryptography (or strong hashing, which is related) part is the 'easy to verify, hard to generate' part of mining that stops people saying "I found all the butts", the 51% is their attempt to have the transaction log, which has to be public, verified without any central authority.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:The whole 51% attack thing is a red herring. Determining which block chain is the valid one is a social problem not a technical problem. Anyone who has a wallet with > 0 bitcoins will only acknowledge blockchains that at least agree with how many bitcoins they own, no matter how long it is. This is true even with central authorities, if the bank tomorrow told me my account had two dollars in it, I wouldn't just go "Oh well, I guess the bank is right". It doesn't matter which chain you agree with, it matters which chain everyone you want to buy from agrees with!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
But does the system use marbles? That is the important question.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Slaan posted:But does the system use marbles? That is the important question. it'll be a system of Chinese checkers
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
an illustrative example of how real people have conversations
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 09:06
|
|