mircea_popescu O also, F.GIGA.ETF going away on Dec. 1st, if anyone missed it earlier.
BTC-Mining What if the information is released at a later date?
mircea_popescu I guess the proceeds get donated.
mircea_popescu What can I tell you... It's been a month already. November is another month. How much later than that ? 2014 ?
BTC-Mining Well maybe not. But seeing as he sent payments (the good amounts) to many and it's not completed after one month, it doesn't look like he lost the database. But he's been incredibly slow. So if he releases data, I would doubt it would happen by December 1st.
mircea_popescu IRL dividends are paid yearly. In Bitcoin people expect weekly, some even daily. Monthly is considered VERY rarely. Yet when it comes to booking losses... nobody thinks o look, five weeks that's five IRL years. I think it's much like missing persons. Those not found in two weeks are never found.
BTC-Mining Yes, but it's not like Nefario disappeared without any news with everything. If one day, the website had suddenly disappeared along with Nefario, that would be acceptable.
mircea_popescu Well... the way these things work is that there's some communication originally... but nothing comes of it. Bitcoinica's still not paid. People still entertain the notion they will get something back, obviously, but it's been what, half a year. Bitfloor... went down, guy asked for our help, now he's gone.
BTC-Mining But Nefario paid many people so far =/
mircea_popescu Paid some people originally. That was weeks ago. Then he stopped paying, and now his site is gone. (In fact, it may well be argued Nefario stole the few k BTC he had of GLBSE money, then insisted theymos return the few hundred he held, then used that to pay SOME people and end of story there).
BTC-Mining Last 2 statements seems innaccurate.
mircea_popescu Did he pay more than what theymos held ? I recall you had a thread about it.
BTC-Mining Apparently, a lot more. From only declared claims which are a lot fewer than the payment chains seen those claims are included in.
mircea_popescu How much does it all add up to, got a link handy ?
BTC-Mining Let me fetch that.
mircea_popescu Nm found it. I see ~1300 BTC ? (why not add a TOTAL at the end ?) But anyway, a key consideration is that those shareholder lists are only useful early on. They decay so to speak.
BTC-Mining Not a bad idea. But claims are included in payment chains for much larger amounts. It is yet to see if users received all of those without more claims.
mircea_popescu Suppose I have a 1k BTC payment in my wallet (and it's all I have). If I pay you 100 BTC, is it right that my program takes 100 BTC to your address and 900 BTC to another address of mine ?
BTC-Mining Should be like that, considering that's how bitcoin transactions work...
mircea_popescu Much more importantly tho, were all the payments sorta early Oct. ?
BTC-Mining Mid October. Had been over a week. At least for mine. I was one of the first paid out I think.
mircea_popescu Mk. So what makes you think that the lists will be released, but after December ?
BTC-Mining Because since Nefario did not disappear with the funds, I still believe it is in the "realm of probable" that he'll release the information, and not in the "realm of possible".
mircea_popescu Ok, so you believe he'll release it. Why would it take another month ?
BTC-Mining You know how it was. Nefario would say he'd have a new feature released next week and end up completing it 2 month laters. He also managed to screw up payments on the 16th, and he seems to want to send all balances out before then giving the addresses to issuers.
mircea_popescu You gotta be kidding me. So when exactly do you expect the shareholder lists to be released ?
BTC-Mining Somewhere in the next weeks to 3 months. After that I'd probably start to assume he managed to lose the database after closing GLBSE.
mircea_popescu Mk, so wanna bet the shareholder lists aren't released by Feb. 1st ?
BTC-Mining Feb 1st? I'd bet you 5 BTC it is released by then. (For those who submitted their information, not in full.)
mircea_popescu What were decent-ish assets there ? Giga, Asicminer and what'd be a third ?
BTC-Mining Bitbond. And quite a few lowball mining operations.
kakobrekla So who is going to escrow the bet ?
BTC-Mining Mutual trust? Unless Mircea wants an escrow for this one.
mircea_popescu Mkay. So "by Feb 1st more than half the shareholders are reinstated in at least two of Gigamining, Asicminer, Bitbond as a result of Nefario releasing the lists to the respective asset owners" is our bet. Works for you ?
BTC-Mining I have no idea what proportion of holders gave their info to be sent to issuer. I would go more by the lack of complaints that some submitted their info and weren't included in the list sent to issuer.
mircea_popescu Hm. But I mean... if not even half the shareholders are reinstated the thing is moot anyway. Might as well not have happened.
BTC-Mining Yes, but if the contact information was not given, it's impossible to release that info to issuers anyway. But technically, that means Nefario would have released the full list if he could have done so, so theorically, it would be done.
mircea_popescu Well so theoretically he's done it already >.<
BTC-Mining No, because he received the contact information from an unkown amount of persons but no issuers were forwarded that info. So even theoretically, he has not released the data. Let's say, if any of Gigamining, Asicminer or Bitbond have together a total of at least 2 or more complaints from members with 50+ posts that they submitted their info but are not included in the released list, or the information for any of those 3 asset is not released at all by February 1st, it shall be deamed the information was not released.
mircea_popescu Ok, I guess I can go with that for 5 BTC. I'm mostly curious to find what exact way does Nefario find to both fuck up in some entirely unexpected novel way and also render this bet moot in one fell swoop.
BTC-Mining He'll accidentally provoke a vacuum metastability event, resulting in a stabler state propagating throughout the Universe at the speed of light, defining new constants for the laws of physics, rendering all Earth and its matter... different. Rendering everything seen by humans pretty much meaningless. Including the bet. How does that sound?
mircea_popescu That sounds muchly exaggerated.
BTC-Mining Yes. It is. It's the most blown out of proportion screw up someone could do.
mircea_popescu I would guess he just mixes the shareholder tables. Sends company 1 list for company 2.
BTC-Mining Eh, I'd consider that as information not released. As the correct issuer would not have the correct information.
mircea_popescu Ya but he wouldn't know this. And seeing how there's maybe a coupla dozen actual people with actual investments and they mostly held everything, being rearranged aroung might not even be noticed.
BTC-Mining That he knows matter not. Just that each issuer receives all the information Nefario was aware of, and that they have the correct information. Since AML was not required and the majority probably claimed... I would doubt it would go unnoticed. The total amount of shares vary a lot from one issue to the other. Plus some people would certainly they got shares of X instead of Y. Some might not complain... but many would. I'm sure the outcome will be very clear.
mircea_popescu Well ok then.
BTC-Mining But really, what bothers me is not the delisting (and trading stopping, which would be appropriate), but the complete deletion of data. The ETF has no terms reserving yourself the right to arbitrarily void the obligation. I would expect the obligation to be honored, wether the assets resurface in 1 day or 2 years. Keeping the data aside doesn't cost much logistically.
mircea_popescu Well, it is kept aside if you keep your stats. MPEx isn't designed to be a sort of GLBSE.
BTC-Mining Hmm, but the data does exist. Wouldn't a simple backup of the tables containing the data for the ETF be enough?
mircea_popescu Enough for what tho ?
BTC-Mining To reinstate it should it become possible.
mircea_popescu Nah, if it doesn't come to its senses by Dec. 1st it's not getting reinstated. Some direct thing, maybe, but GLBSE shares, no.
BTC-Mining That's the thing, they would be direct shares with Gigamining should the information be released. Not GLBSE shares.
mircea_popescu Basically, the reasoning is this : there was a company organised to finance a ship sent to wherever. That ship was lost at sea. If it's not heard from in X time, the company is dissolved as worthless.
BTC-Mining Gigavps keeps track of all payments due and if information is released, will pay all what is due. The "company" is neither lost, or getting dissolved.
mircea_popescu The ETF held GLBSE shares. That's the ship. Sure, the concept of spices, or the concept of cargo, or the ship's destination still exists. But the ship itself is lost at sea.
BTC-Mining The ship's location is known. Who the cargo is to be delivered to is not known. GLBSE simply either hasn't released who had how many shares.
mircea_popescu But GLBSE.com is no longer responding, is it.
BTC-Mining Nefario still talked to a few people recently. But doesn't answer publicly or to support requests, probably because they consist on thousands upon thousands of tickets looking like: "I haven't received my balance yet. Why?"
mircea_popescu Not what I said tho. GLBSE.com is no longer responding, the website itself.
BTC-Mining Ah, GLBSE.com
mircea_popescu Yes. So no, the ship's location is not known. It USED to be known. And back when it still was known, we were still waiting.
BTC-Mining I don't see how GLBSE is the ship. The ship is Gigavps's mining operation.
mircea_popescu Well that's an incorrect representation. Obviously it may be convenient, but it's not the case. The ETF held GLBSE shares, nothing else.
BTC-Mining Your IPO technically states: "The owner of this ETF holds 900 perpetual 5.0Mh/s bonds (details), " Not GLBSE shares, GIGAMINING mining bonds.
kakobrekla The ship is sailing in milk.i
mircea_popescu There's sufficient reference to "owning shares" to satisfy this point. Lol kakobrekla.
BTC-Mining The shares were traded on GLBSE. But GLBSE was never the ship. It never mined or produced the returns. It was merely sending the ship where it was to be delivered. Now the ship doesn't know where to go.
mircea_popescu "The shares were traded on GLBSE. But GLBSE was never the ship." << what's this, cognitive dissonance 101 ?
BTC-Mining Because GLBSE was never the shares or represented them, they were merely a platform to exchange the bonds.
mircea_popescu This is not true. This is true of MPEx, yes, because MPEx is correctly designed. Not the case of GLBSE however. With GLBSE, Nefario == GLBSE == the shares. There's no way to actually make these distinctions you'd like. Sure, they're desperately needed, but unfortunately did not exist.
BTC-Mining What you're saying sounds like if my broker, after the NYSE let's say is hit by a meteor and trading is halted, coming to me to say he has no news of when it will come back and that holders data might or might not be lost, possibly never to come back and says "You have to let go." (said in a very comforting voice, patting you on the shoulder, with a grin on his face), because obviously the traded company and their stock don't exist without the stock exchange. So he'll delete all his records of which stocks that he held in my name because he consider the ship lost at see. And if data comes back: "Oh sorry. Can't give you anything, I don't have records showing what I owe you."
mircea_popescu Why does it sound like that ?
BTC-Mining Because that's exactly what you're doing? Except the moment where you tell me I have to let go. It's not like someone lost at see who is declared as such because he can't survive too long in the open sea so all efforts should be abandoned. Shares can't die, even if lost for years.
mircea_popescu But you are familiar with the circumstance that the NYSE merely trades, there's clearing houses and depositary institutions which actually hold the shares and settle/clear the transactions. Correct ? Well ?!
BTC-Mining Yes, and it should have been done. The fact GLBSE was 100% central seems moot however. Because the fact the data might not resurface and the broker might not get access to the shares he held for me does not excuse him to erase all data just for the heck of it based on his personal expectations of what will happen. I would expect the same from someone managing an ETF. Especially with something as easy to avoid by simply not willingly deleting the data.
mircea_popescu So, to fix your example : if a rain of meteors obliterates the NYSE, and each and all scrap of trace of the existance, chain of custody and so forth of an asset will you be surprised if your broker says, after a few years/a decade, "sorry" and moves on ?
BTC-Mining After a decade, no.
mircea_popescu Right. It's been 8 dividend periods. That's close to a decade.
BTC-Mining It hasn't been a decade however.
mircea_popescu But this isn't an IRL broker, however. Time moves at a different pace here, as proven by the fact dividends are not paid yearly. Now, I haven't DONE THIS FIRSTii, but announced it with ample time in advance exactly so as to have the opportunity for this sort of conversation.
BTC-Mining If no traces are found of records and it's obvious they were destroyed, I would not mind that my broker moves on and asks the same of me. But this is not the case. Time does not move at a different pace? Dividends are paid more often simply because Bitcoins (and bitcoin mining) allows income and sharing of it much faster without all the financial fees to send those funds around. Not because time magically paces faster around Bitcoins.
mircea_popescu Again, cognitive dissonance 101 ? Things happen faster but they don't happen faster ? Well, why not ?
BTC-Mining The dividends happen faster. Time does not move faster. They are different things.
mircea_popescu Your IRL broker will move on after 10 dividend periods, aka a decade IRL. MPEx moves on after 10 dividend periods, aka 2 months IRL. Seems rather reasonable.
BTC-Mining I would attribute the frequent dividend to the nature of Bitcoins. They allow it for not being as slow and not requiring such wire fees for sending funds. Plus the small nature of operations can also manage to pay more often.
mircea_popescu Right. But the asset has in fact already missed something like 5 or 6 dividend payments, correct ?
BTC-Mining The time my IRL broker moves on is not based on dividend periods, it's based on leaving time for the recovery of record. That dividends are paid every day or every 10 years matters not.
mircea_popescu Well, why not ? If "allows income and sharing of it much faster" that'd seem on the face that it... allows... things...moving...faster. Why should just some things move faster ?
BTC-Mining Because why would he wait before moving on? For data recovery if possible. If not possible, move on.
mircea_popescu Right. So you are literally telling me that it takes two months to do a couple sql queries on Nefario's end ? It's not like he has to dig out records from a 5mn folders pile of paper.
BTC-Mining Data recovery is completly unrelated and independant of payment periods.
mircea_popescu No, it's not lol. Since the very reason you gave for faster payment periods was ease of handling the data.
BTC-Mining Well who's to say because it is easy and faster, it will be done so? You could pay out on S.MPOE daily or weekly, but you do not.
mircea_popescu No, I do not. I think the weekly thing is unconscionable. But that's really besides the point isn't it ?
BTC-Mining Not really.
mircea_popescu How so ?
* mircea_popescu wonders if everyone else is alseep/sexting/busy not giving a shit or quite the contrary, in awed silence at the sheer genius of the debate unraveling before their very eyes.
BTC-Mining I claim payment period can possibly be more frequent, but not obligated. I want to know why, because of these faster periods (completly unrelated and optional), you feel it's ok to move on and delete all data just as much faster, without any knowledge of what's happening on Nefario's side?
mircea_popescu But do you actually claim that objectively the time needed to retrieve the data is in the months rather than minutes scale ?
mircea_popescu Ok. so then what is your idea here ? That more time could conceivably help and thus is a right ? Nefario could in fact have released all the data in question in half the time we took discussing his idiocy so far. Just in this present bout.
BTC-Mining But he seemed quite concerned of the legalities when he closed. He didn't run away with all the funds. He did take time to start processing. He's probably still concerned.
mircea_popescu So ?!
BTC-Mining So he could be checking further how to minimize his liabilities. Decide to require AML again for disclosing assets, or anything really.
mircea_popescu After the fact ?
BTC-Mining Yes, after the fact.
mircea_popescu I still don't see how any of this makes any sense or amounts to an actual challenge. I mean... maybe he decides to give us all candy, in the future. It's possible, why not. But that aside : a catastrophe has occured. Even though this was not specifically written out in the contract, a set interval of time will be allowed for recovery, after which that's that. Do you see a problem in principle with this ?
BTC-Mining If you don't know the facts, he claims to have asked the FSA about it long ago but they claimed not to be concerned by anything Bitcoins related. (Probably miscommunication). Trying to go legal, he consulted again and was told to stop or he could be charged.
mircea_popescu You know this as a fact ?
BTC-Mining I'll have to fetch the sources, but it seems likely. Seems to be what GLBSE shareholders claim.
mircea_popescu Well does it seem likely or wtf. Half the GLBSE shareholders are pretty much lieing scumbags, as it came out. I thought you were all against mixing fact and fiction.
BTC-Mining Hmm, yes. But fact is, if it's indeed true, he could limit his liabilities by applying regulations after he's been made aware of it, and would certainly get him to delay things a lot while consulting.
kuzetsa mircea_popescu: the GLBSE flaming and whatnot... don't you have ties to a competing exchange? As such, isn't FUD surrounding GLBSE good for your business?
mircea_popescu Look, I have in fact hired lawyers in this life, I'm not talking out of imagination. NEVER have I waited A MONTH for a fucking report. Maybe a couple of weeks, if it was REALLY involved and complex and needed loads of research.
BTC-Mining I'm against opinion passing as facts, or misquoting.
mircea_popescu kuzetsa I own the exchange GLBSE was trying to compete with.
kuzetsa Uh huh.
BTC-Mining But Nefario seems to only be able to aford some lousy lawyer.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining ok, but let's get back on track here.
BTC-Mining If Nefario is screwing things up or being slow, it wouldn't excuse you from doing just as much in return. Plus it opens you to accusations. You should keep the data for at least more than 2 months is what I am saying.
mircea_popescu Well so I said it's kept a month, you want it to be kept two. Am I correct in inferring that at least in principle you don't see a problem, and you mostly dispute the actual time interval ?
BTC-Mining No, after the 1st December, you'll have kept it for more than 2 months.
mircea_popescu Huh ?
BTC-Mining Hmm... 2 months actually since the day GLBSE went down.
mircea_popescu How do we count that ? Was it Oct 1st ? or with Goat ? or with yest when it finally went offline ?
BTC-Mining And yes, I dispute the time interval. Your argument so far was that if payment periods go faster, why not the time allowed to disclose the information before considering it gone for good? But you yourself agreed that the two were unrelated. I do not dispute the delisting, nor the need to eventually move on.
mircea_popescu So for clarity, you agree with the principle, but disagree with the interval ? 'kay. Well... so what's the rationale for your interval ?
sgornick > mircea_popescu wonders if everyone else is alseep/sexting/busy not giving a shit or quite the contrary,
mircea_popescu O hai sgornick.
* sgornick scrolled back, and read forward. And would like a refund for the past 8 minutes of his life.
mircea_popescu How much is it ?
sgornick About two satoshis.
mircea_popescu Address ? :p
kakobrekla Hey, thats my fee.
BTC-Mining 8/60th of minimum hourly salary in whatever area he is located.
kuzetsa ;;gpg info sgornick
gribble User 'sgornick', with keyid F64A32C07327B2F8, fingerprint 1619E0F30A0AE945C3A5407EF64A32C07327B2F8, and bitcoin address 1ADZYhYZu1epmsZUAUa2fZ299p7xwVJ46k, registered on Mon Mar 7 00:42:20 2011. http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=sgornick . Currently not authenticated.
kuzetsa mircea_popescu: probably that one :P
mircea_popescu Maybe he wants satoshi pairs sent to special mating addresses where they can multiply, what do I know.
smickles BTC-Mining: "... He didn't run away with all the funds. ..."
BTC-Mining He didn't run away with >>ALL<< the funds
smickles Heh, he did from the perspective of those accounts. And I put that backward. 1 of 3 got BTC back.
mircea_popescu smickles in the end it seems he paid ~1.3k or so. Originally I was thinking he just paid theymos' funds.
BTC-Mining So you could expect he actually intends to refund everyone. Wether he can or screw up doing so however, is uncertain, since there's already a screw up.
mircea_popescu I still don't understand why would he not have issued the assets, if he's gonna do it. I mean, at first few days cause it might take some time to recombobulate the data. Then cause he was holding theymos hostage for BTC. Now ?
BTC-Mining 1.3k is just what was claimed by people on the forum. Most probably never claimed their payment on my thread, or were even aware of it or willing to disclose how much they had on it. People like to be private around Bitcoins it seems.
smickles Is there news about the asset info?
mircea_popescu smickles None. This is mostly cause I announced that GIGA.ETF goes away on Dec. 1st if it's not fixed.
BTC-Mining Mircea, the rationale behind the interval is that with how things have been going, it is not clear or obvious that Nefario lost any data or intends not to return it. And being highly unpredictable and uncommunicative since the start, one could expect the information to be released way past the short delay you seem to allow.
smickles What am I going to do with all this BTC if I don't get infos.
mircea_popescu Yes, but in order to have a deadline you have to have a deadline. So what's your proposed deadline and why ?
BTC-Mining But why one month away?
smickles Yeah, what's the reasonable amount of time that I have to secure and maintain this BTC? It's not like I'm getting paid to do it.
mircea_popescu Well, I honestly went 10x dividend periods. Seemed to me the most reasonable approach. smickles it's a quite important problem which is why I think this discussion matters. I mean, FOREVER is off the table. Now, how long is reasonable ?
sgornick Wait, did the GIGA.ETF manager obtain the gigamining shares through GLBSE, or direct from gigaminig?
smickles Is there any legal position to be informed by?
mircea_popescu smickles not really. sgornick I originally had them directly, but then all pre-ipo holdings were transformed into GLBSE shares.
BTC-Mining I'd say at least 6 months without any news or sight whatsoever of Nefario. Considering it's assets information, it's still very short, but at least more appropriate.
smickles Bad move in hindsight mircea_popescu
mircea_popescu smickles I didn't want to do it, I asked at the time to keep it private, but eventually didn't want to cause trouble. After all, "fud" it was called, right ?
smickles 6 months and then what BTC-Mining ? Fud, lovely.
BTC-Mining He'll delete all data regarding what is owed.
mircea_popescu 6 months "without sight" ? What if the bloke pulls a strateman, drops by every season on BTCtalk to post a trollface ?
smickles Thing is, Uncertainty and Doubt are good things.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining I can't delete "all data" man. The signed stats will forever exist. We're not talking GLBSE here.
mircea_popescu Anyone can keep the stat saying "x F.GIGA" for as long as they think it's worth it.
BTC-Mining But you won't keep your side of the data or honor anything, am I right? Or will you?
mircea_popescu It won't show in your stats anymore. It will still exist in my backups, obviouysly (as well as in your backups, if you're downloading the MPEx backups with any frequency).
BTC-Mining So you're actually going to keep the data?
mircea_popescu Depends what that means ;/ It will not be in the active db.
BTC-Mining Will you honor the most recent data available as of who owns what of the ETF should the information be disclosed and you get access to the funds received through it? I guess would be were I'm getting at.
smickles 30 years later?
mircea_popescu Lol srsly.
smickles BTC-Mining: you expect the data to be kept for 30 years?
mircea_popescu Didn't you just say above you understand there will have to be some limit ?!
BTC-Mining I wasn't answering to smickles... in hindsight, I was answering the "lol, srsly", but it was probably destined to smickles.
mircea_popescu No but in general, people will have to start reading up on write-offs. This notion that they hang on the hope of pirate repaying 30 years later... this is cargo cult not finance.
BTC-Mining I don't expect 30 years. I'm just asking, suppose the data is released in the next few months, would you honor the most recent information?
mircea_popescu If those next few months are November, then absolutely.
BTC-Mining But pirate was an obvious Ponzi, still is, and he just disappeared suddenly one day and stopped paying people.
mircea_popescu No he didn't. He kept pulling people's chains FOR MONTHS. And it was "an obvious Ponzi" pretty much to three people iirc. But we digress.
BTC-Mining Sorry. The business stopped paying suddenly one day. All I'm saying is, 1 month is not reasonable delays.
BTC-Mining 1 month before delisting, 6 before deleting the data you hold, would be the minimum I find acceptable.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining based on what criteria ? Just pulled some numbers ?
BTC-Mining Yes it's an opinion. Based on the fact Nefario has been unreliable and he doesn't have an history of completing task this fast. So I find it unreasonable to give a delay of 1 month.
mircea_popescu Man, but this subject can't be decided based on Nefario. Nefario is below a negligible quantity. We need something workable in principle. You think we'll just change the terms based on each low-life that happens to blow this way ?
BTC-Mining But there's none, because only Nefario can release the data. And he's unreliable.
smickles I'm not going to base my obligation on the shortcomming of an asshat.
BTC-Mining Even if you're not at fault, professionalism would recommend you allow a long delay to account for that.
smickles BTC-Mining: from what I'm reading, it seems that a resonable period of time may be between 1 and 3 years.
mircea_popescu smickles in any event, I don't think escheat would be the controlling doctrine. More like treasure trove or somesuch. BTC-Mining "I don't dispute, a long delay." Why's 2 months not a long delay tho.
smickles mircea_popescu: what about considering it lost.
mircea_popescu smickles needs more words.
BTC-Mining Because any individual, especially when dealing with them personnally, can often report to later for months to a few years before resolving the dispute or admitting he can't. And Nefario admitted he wouldn't accept any decision by GLBSE shareholder and would act however he wished to protect himself. He made it obvious he would have priority, so long delays might be expected. If he had never sent out so many payment and just stopped business like Pirate did and just stayed around, I would not have minded the 1 month delay.
mircea_popescu You keep refering to Nefario as if he's relevant. I don't see why he is relevant at all.
BTC-Mining I already stated he's relevant because he's the only one holding the assets information and able to disclose it.
mircea_popescu But the only way to quash this would be to show that a two month delay is not acceptable in principle. Showing that it's not convenient in this particular case isn't much.
smickles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession would be an interesting way to handle it
mircea_popescu smickles afaik that's always been limited to real property. There's no adverse posession of chattels.
BTC-Mining Delays for data recovery can never be determined exactly. I don't see why it would require to be proven to be acceptable or not.
mircea_popescu I mean, BTC-Mining : I received recently a request from Neustar to prove that indeed I am entitled to hold a .us domain. The time interval offered was 10 days.
BTC-Mining Yes, so?
smickles Oh shit. Involuntary bailee. "An exception to all the above is the case of an involuntary bailee, one who by not intentional acts is made a bailee. For example, if one is given a stock certificate but it turns out to be the wrong certificate (intended for someone else), he is an unintentional bailee, he has made no intentional act to become a bailee. He is therefore entitled to divest himself of the certificate regardless of a duty of care, so long as he does no malicious or "
mircea_popescu smickles ofcourse. But we're trying to avoid this. There's no dispute that in law I can drop the entire thing on Oct. the 5th. You too, and anyone else involved.
BTC-Mining Why? And does that automatically make that delay appropriate for everything? (the 10 days thing)
smickles BTC-Mining: seems to be statutory in common law with no precedent overriding it.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining because you can't force somebody to hold something for you at their expense ?
BTC-Mining But that's the thing, you were not forced to held these for us and would gain a huge financial benefit if the information is disclosed after you deleted the data. You're not an unintentional bailee.
mircea_popescu What benefit is that ?
BTC-Mining Financial benefit? You are now in possession of ~1000 Gigamining bonds with no data of who held the ETF or intention to honor it.
mircea_popescu Nope ?
BTC-Mining How so?
mircea_popescu I have (indirect) claims on about 1k (more like 1.1 iirc) of GIGAMINING shares.
BTC-Mining Aye, so?
mircea_popescu If I had 1k bonds this discussion wouldn't exist, I'd be paying dividends on them lol.
BTC-Mining You don't have them now, no... That's not what I said either.
mircea_popescu "You are now in possession of ~1000 Gigamining bonds"... but anyway.
BTC-Mining I said if information was released after December 1st, you'd now be in possession of those bonds.
mircea_popescu O I see.
BTC-Mining Because you would have deleted all data with no intent to further honor it, it stands as a financial gain. Gigavps keeps track of what is due and would start paying out all missed payments.
mircea_popescu Nah, I'm not going to realise that gain.
BTC-Mining No, but that won't be verifiable.
smickles Not forced to hold? I giving it all back and Nefario stopped that and sent the BTC back to me :/
mircea_popescu I guess if I end up with a windfall it'll just make some worthy cause rich. I wonder who should get it this time, PDPC got it last time...
BTC-Mining And since you were not forced to hold them for the ETF, I think that voids your right to be entitled to divest yourself of the certificate either.
mircea_popescu Huh ?
BTC-Mining What smickles proposed about involuntary bailee.
smickles I dunno that much about involuntary bailee, I'm just searching for any sort of similar thing to what's going on here
mircea_popescu Wait a second. So, I made thing A. Thing A is no longer. You want me to be the holder of substitute-thing B until such a time that you're satisfied. This qualifies just fine.
BTC-Mining You're not even divesting from the Gigamining shares, you're destroying your own ETF, issued by you. Divesting requires departing yourself of the asset. But if information is disclosed, you will be in their possession. What you are destroying are the claims to them, which you are: 1. Neither the holder 2. Neither the involuntary holder. You own rights to Gigamining bonds (on your own will). I own claims to them.
smickles BTC-Mining: involuntary bailee seems to say that if someone is in possesion of something that isn't theirs, and they came by this possesion unintentionally, then they are not responsible to the real owner for what happens to it.
mircea_popescu Let's see the whole line here. 1. giga made a mining thing ; 2. GLBSE listed the mining thing ; 3. I own shares in the GLBSE mining thing ; 4 I made a MPEx thing ; 5 you own shares in the MPEx thing. This about right so far ?
BTC-Mining He didn't get the shares unintentionally. He bought them to then sell fractional claims to them.
smickles So the shares are his anyway then. The fractional claim is the question?
BTC-Mining He's not an unintentional holder is what I'm saying.
smickles It's force majeure. Overwhelming force has voided the f.giga contract. Voided or posponed I guess.
smickles How is it not?
BTC-Mining He has no such clauses or anything reserving himself the right to arbitrarily and unilaterally void the claims he sold himself.
mircea_popescu No but srsly, let us get to the bottom of this, ok ? BTC-Mining you dispute the scheme laid out above ?
BTC-Mining I do not.
mircea_popescu Ok. Now, in the event 2 dissapears,
BTC-Mining Except for part 3
mircea_popescu Well ?
BTC-Mining You own shares in the mining thing, not the GLBSE mining thing.
mircea_popescu Nope, I own shares in the GLBSE miningthing, ie, GIGAMINING shares.
BTC-Mining You own Gigamining shares, issued and traded on GLBSE, but not "GLBSE's mining thing".
mircea_popescu Again, if I had off-GLBSE private bonds this entire discussion would be moot.
mircea_popescu Well, let it be on record that what I mean by "GLBSE's mining thing" is Gigamining shares, issued and traded on GLBSE.
BTC-Mining Perfect then.
mircea_popescu Moving right along. Once 2 goes away, you propose that it is my obligation to create a 2' vehicle to bridge this gap. I might extend something like this as a courtesy, and for a limited time. In law I'm perfectly allowed to not do it at all (hence the discussion of involuntary bailee, you purport to make me the depositor of a 2' device which I never should have to hold) but even if I forfeit this entitlement, I can only do it in a time-limited way. I can't accept eternal burden of any-and-all 2' that could or may be conceived.
smickles This is a facinating issue to me :)
mircea_popescu It is a pretty important point for BTC in general, which is why I'm taking the time. Conveniently BTC-Mining is taking the other side, I'm not sure I'd prefer anyone else for it.
BTC-Mining You are not an involuntary bailee. You received the assets of your own will and held them of your own will for the purpose of selling claims to it. You never received them against your will. In fact, they're currently TAKEN AWAY from you against your own will. Not forced upon you.
mircea_popescu Yes, the assets.
smickles BTC-Mining: didn't you claim to have bought a bunch of f.giga when GLBSE went down?
mircea_popescu But not some-other-thing-which-aren't-the-assets.
BTC-Mining How are you the unvoluntary bailee of those other things?
smickles Wait, do we really consider having stuff associated with your GLBSE account ownership? (maybe off topic).
BTC-Mining Aka, the GIGA.ETF.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining because the vehicle for my ownership was the GLBSE share, which now is no more. It has in practice been replaced by a vague sort of claim thing.
BTC-Mining The claims were sold to me. I'm the current holder. You are not. You are the issuer. You cannot be the unvoluntary bailee of your own issue.
smickles Example : mircea_popescu leased an office in a building, the building is taken out by a tornado (leased to someone else). Is mircea_popescu still responsible to provide an office to that person? Assumes there was not a force majeure clause in the lease.
mircea_popescu smickles no, it's more complicated. Person A leases a building to person B. Person B leases office space to C. Person A is arrested and the building confiscated. C demands from B that B ensures C gets the office space at a future time if the building is returned to A. This would make B the involuntary bailee of C's claim, because B never leased to C any such thing as "future claims to the office space conditional on A's performance in court". While C may be entitled to that claim, it's really not much of B's business.
BTC-Mining No. B indeed (re)leased office space to C. To be the involuntary bailee, you'd have to be holding the claim from C to A. Where you could throw out the claim or quite simply give it to it's actual beneficiary.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining there's no limitation that you can only be IB if you can divest in a manner convenient to all parties involved, quite the contrary. Anyway, even the example as given is simplified, because it gonflates giga and GLBSE into A.
BTC-Mining Yes. Indeed.
mircea_popescu And at any rate the whole involuntary bailee point is mostly academic, it just rehashes the obvious "tough tits" line. We only got into that cause smickles brought it up, but otherwise, the point is more along the lines of, some time limit will have to be enforced. Why this rather than that ?
BTC-Mining Because it's perfectably expectable for information to be released in more than a month, while it is not in 10 years without any news.
mircea_popescu In principle the same could be said of 10 years vs 1000 years.
mircea_popescu Because it's purely arbitrary. Yes, the chances to get something increase with time. So, if nothing happens in one week, better wait a month. If nothing happens in a month, better wait two. If nothing happens in two better wait six etc. Still doesn't indicate why six months is more reasonable than six weeks.
smickles mircea_popescu: lets do this logically, you made the first positive claim right?
mircea_popescu smickles what I indicated was 10 dividend periods. I don't claim it's perfect or anything, should carry the day. I just didn't hear anything more reasonable.
smickles Then BTC-Mining contested, right ?
mircea_popescu Well we agreed on principle but not on the actual interval so far.
smickles So how do you justify 10 dividend periods?
BTC-Mining In 10 years, odds of data remaining gets slight, especially as the storage on which the data was is probably destroyed and unless some guy (who never gave news or disclosed this date), kept moving it to new storage as time went by, the data would be lost. Which is expectable and probable. Why would the guy keep to back it up if he's not disclosing it?
mircea_popescu smickles degree of magnitute more than the smallest contractual breach. BTC-Mining yes, they will be slight, by today's measure. Because today the scent is still fresh. But in 9 years it will seem reasonable to wait 100 rather than 10.
smickles BTC-Mining: do you contest this 'order of magnitude' argument?
mircea_popescu Why'd he have to contest it ?
mircea_popescu That's kinda absurd, we'll never be done if we go that way. We just contest ad infinitum.
smickles mircea_popescu: you'd only do it back to first principles, not ad infinitum. And if you disagree on first principles, one of you is a turnip.
BTC-Mining No. Because it has to be set as a hard limit. But by today's standard. Not by reviewing them later as: "Well we went on waiting 10 years, why not 100?"
mircea_popescu More constructively, do you have something better than that, I'd want to know. BTC-Mining but that's exactly what we're doing today.
BTC-Mining And 1 month does not seems appropriate. I'm contesting that.
mircea_popescu We waited a month, and you are saying "well we should wait six cause this guy is slow".
BTC-Mining I'm not contesting it 1 month after. I'm contesting the fact you chose 1 month from day 1. We didn't wait a month, that's the thing.
mircea_popescu What did we do ?
BTC-Mining GLBSE.com went offline. You decided to, right now, allow 1 month. I'm contesting that this decision is appropriate for right now. And not contesting afterward saying we should wait more. I would have no problem accepting it if I had agreed the delay was reasonable, and waited the whole of that delay.
mircea_popescu But see, GLBSE.com going offline is really the absolute last signal of dissapearance. Nefario went silent, before this. Their "corporate" board broke apart. The guy got a scammer tag for chrissakes. This was the last ditch of credibility left. What's left now ?
BTC-Mining He got a scammer tag because Theymos was a shareholder and got screwed in this because Nefario doesn't recognize their decisive power because he claims he can't honor requests that would make him break the law. I does not prevents him from disclosing the information.
mircea_popescu Man, forget the because. Look at things objectively. Is the guy here defending himself ? No, he's not. Is the company still standing ? No, it was dissolved (retroactively). Is his reputation in good standing ? No, it's not. Is the website online ? Neither. What is left to hang hope on ?
BTC-Mining Eh, I thought so too. 1 month is just a token period. You'd erase the data right away if it wouldn't raise protest. You already consider it gone.
mircea_popescu I wouldn't erase the data right away on general principle. And afaik at least one GLBSE failure was already resolved, without protest for that matter.
BTC-Mining So why not have a more reasonable delay, on general principal. Balances have been partially paid out. Nefario communicated with the shareholder his intent to not act upon their vote if it was not lawful to do so.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining the sticking point is the reasonable part of more reasonable.
BTC-Mining You're treating it like every other Bitcoin scam with the equivalent delays before declaring it lost.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining ask copumpkin, I was pushing for pirate write-offs in August. Not that anyone listened then or anything.
copumpkin Oh mircea_popescu was pushing! Oh well :)
mircea_popescu People seem more religious than business-oriented in BTC. Teh saviour shall come sort of outlook.
copumpkin I wonder what he's doing with all the money. Not that he got any out of me.
mircea_popescu Messiah ?
BTC-Mining So was I. I could almost have expected to write it off almost right away. But to my surprise, balances actually started to be paid.
mircea_popescu You mean pirate ?!
BTC-Mining No, GLBSE.
mircea_popescu O you mean Nefario ya. Which is why we weren't having this conversation on the 15th. But I still fail to see how the whole month of November is an unreasonable allowance to fucking pull some fields from a db and send them to people.
BTC-Mining Because Nefario DOES NOT WANT to simply pull the database's fields and send that. So on that account, I think delays should be set as such to allow the benefit of doubt that Nefario intends to repay.
mircea_popescu I thought they are ;/ For instance Patrick Harnett is getting axed tomorrow on the dot. O, he doesn't want to does he ? And you figure this matters ?
mircea_popescu Well, I don't. Why do I care what someone wants ? What is this, college ?
BTC-Mining You're unilaterally taking a decision to void claims because Nefario does not release information fast enough for you, regardless of it it will be released or not.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining yes, that's the principle of the thing. When someone says they do something and then they don't do it, they get some time before being cut off. Regardless if they "will" do it or not. Foreclosure works the same exact way, for instance.
BTC-Mining Yes, but the delays should be set accordingly to the expected time it will take them to do so, and you usually add an extra on that in case.
mircea_popescu The expected time to pull data from db is 5 minutes. 1 + 1 months > 5 minutes. Problem ?
BTC-Mining That's the thing. You'd be disregarding all possible laws Nefario might want to comply to by selecting that 5 minute delay.
mircea_popescu That 5 minute delay is how long it takes to do it. You know, like if you don't make the mortgage payments cause your cat was sick the bank would still fuck you.
BTC-Mining It's how long it takes to retrieve it from the database. Not how long it takes to disclose it for some paranoid fuck who just started consulting a lawyer. And now wants to close it legally.
mircea_popescu Dude... there's no doctrine of "how long it takes some mentally retarded guy to pay the bill". It's how long the thing takes, not how long the thing takes Nefario.
copumpkin If he's bound by laws, he can tell us what those laws are, at least. You can't cite unknowable lawyerspeak as an excuse and it can't just be "the law" since that just looks like shitty excuses for not getting your shit done.
mircea_popescu copumpkin fwiw, I contacted his theoretical lawyer about two weeks ago. No reply.
smickles copumpkin: but it's santa cLAWs
copumpkin Lol mircea_popescu: sounds legit.
mircea_popescu I mean... all this isn't for lack of trying. It's for lack of absolutely any reasonable alternative.
BTC-Mining The expected time it will take, not in as fast you could do it, but how fast it could be expected to be done according to how it's been said it's going to be done.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining no such license eh. For one, how it was said it was going to be done is "instant". Check out the guy's presentations at his nonference. At any rate find me some place Nefario says "and btw, if GLBSE goes down I will take ~6 months to release infos" on or around April 11, 2012.
BTC-Mining That's not what he claimed when closing GLBSE.
mircea_popescu What he claimed in October has no bearing on some instrument made in April does it.
BTC-Mining Nowhere does he states how much time he will take to do it. Just that he's suddenly very concerned by a few regulations.
mircea_popescu Why do you think it matters what Nefario said after the GIGA.ETF thing was made ?
BTC-Mining Because he has the damn information to release and you have the claims to the shares I have claims to.
mircea_popescu So listen, if I run a payday loan service, and I lend some guy 50 bucks for a week and his employer announces that next salary will be paid in 2050 I have to extend my loan to 2050 ?
smickles Have you asked gigga if he'll honor your shares for the ETF?
mircea_popescu smickles I won't ask such a thing, it's absurd.
BTC-Mining No. Because that's 40 years. It's unreasonable.
mircea_popescu 2015 ?
BTC-Mining I'd accept 6 month as a minimum.
smickles And without a declared timeframe from Nefario, I'm starting to think that we can't reasonably expect to get the data in a reasonable amount of time.
mircea_popescu Ahah you and your 6 months. I wouldn't accept one day. A week's a week. Fuck you, pay me.
BTC-Mining Let me try to explain it from my point of view.
smickles mircea_popescu: go to missouri eviction legal with one day of default
mircea_popescu smickles if he had the common courtesy to say you know, on Oct. 1, we are closed, I expect to pay everyone by the end of this week and release data by the end of the month cause so and so problems and then BLEW both dates I'd still be waiting for him.
smickles mircea_popescu: yeah, but releasing the data by the end of the month is unreasonably long, unless he could point to a specific detail (law) which prevented him from doing so in that time frame.
mircea_popescu smickles but at least it'd be you know... he said by today, it's not done yet... well let's give it a little and see. It'd be... something.
smickles I have no patience for giving people a little more time. They take my spelling away from me.
BTC-Mining What that 1 month tells me is because Nefario completly fucked up, although you know about it and although you know he further screwed on the 16th and you know he's never been quite good at PR, because it could be done in 5 minutes by you (which you know won't happen) or that he might never disclose it (again, a possibility, not an absolute), you can't be assed to extend the courtesy of not pressing "delete" on all the data for the ETF's for your customers' sake.
mircea_popescu This is such complete misrepresentation. For instance I announced the exact time, what's to keep customers from just saving a stat ?
smickles BTC-Mining: I've lost too high a % of my net worth by extending people courtesies to continue the practice.
BTC-Mining You said YOURSELF you won't honor the statements if the information is released after December 1st.
smickles "mircea_popescu since for instance I announced the exact time, what's to keep customers from just saving a stat ?" +
BTC-Mining What good would prior notice and saving the statement do?
smickles Doesn't that imply he'll honor them before dec 1? Just STAT b/f Dec 1. Save it, send it off to amazon glacier.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining it at the very least changes the customer's position not one bit. You were talking about "data being deleted". A customer wanting to push a claim would be in no worse position today, on the 5th of December 2012 or 2015.
mircea_popescu So at the very least under the guise of protecting your interest you're trying to tell me how to sort my files lol. Which is hardly something you should be involved in ?! There's two different things here, do you realise this ? Your ability to prove that you owed X shares of Y is never going away. That's why you get stats (and that's why the MPEx system is so good, incidentally).
BTC-Mining It WOULD be good if you didn't keep any profit from that decision from GIGAMINING shares and donated it to a charitable cause. It WOULD be good if you told Gigavps you were writing them off and we could give him those signed statements
smickles BTC-Mining: I bet, that presenting a stat after info is released would get your benefit back .2btc BTC-Mining ? Even odds?
mircea_popescu Well or alternatively he could "sue" me on unjust enrichment or w/e.
BTC-Mining No, Mircea clearly stated it would not give my benefit back. After December 1st, if assets information is released, he won't honor any statements. He'll just donate the proceeds.
smickles I took that to mean a stat made after Dec 1. "My bad" I suppose.
BTC-Mining After December 1, no STAT will include any ETF holding because data will have been removed...
BTC-Mining So it will not be possible.
smickles No it will, just STAT b/f dec 1 and keep it. It's a signed receipt. One local, one local backup, one offsite backup. Burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion (i.e. in this situation, the f.giga holder).
BTC-Mining But that's the thing, Mircea said he would not accept any signed statement or backup of his database if asset information is disclosed after December 1st (from GLBSE part). Not about statments from MPEx coming after December 1st because there would be none. (Info about the ETF)
smickles yeah, well, I'm inclined to agree with that course of action myself
mircea_popescu Actually what it says is "shares held discarded as worthless". It specifically does not say what happens if they even later prove to have been mistakenly discarded as worthless (as in, are worth something). But as explained above, this does not actually degrade anyone's ability to prove that they did own them at some point.
BTC-Mining But what good would that do to be able to prove you owned them at some point?
mircea_popescu Now how would I know that ?
BTC-Mining So the signed statements are pretty much... pointless, then.
mircea_popescu Mmm how do you judge ?
smickles mircea_popescu: directly, if I had proof that I owned F.GIGA.ETF on Dec 1, would you give me fair value of those shares at any point in the future if I relinquish my ownership of them?
mircea_popescu smickles I will (and always have) satisfy legitimate claims against myself. Now, it'll all come down to whether your claim is legitimate at that point.
smickles There you have it BTC-Mining.
BTC-Mining Seriously, why do you even have them if you nor anyone else accepts them? Okay, let's take it from another angle.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining your rights are your rights man.
mircea_popescu They're not a function of someone else.
BTC-Mining I'm really confused... can't you just say if you'll honor or not a valid claim to any shares?
mircea_popescu No, cause it's a future question and I don't know the contingencies.
BTC-Mining Ah, I see...That kind of changes everything tho.
mircea_popescu People were asking me, oh, what about upgrade to tera. I had to stick to "all I'll do is pass along all that's passed to me". Because I can't make future viewing statements on contingencies like that. Turns out I was responsible to do it, too, cause it prevented teh crisis from compounding to some degree.
BTC-Mining I have two question then. Ok, so all signed statement has a CERTAIN claim value, but you won't pronounce yourself on that value until you know the facts regarding the future situation for such claims.
mircea_popescu Well yes. And I fully appreciate it may seem insane or w/e, but the fact of the matter is we are involved in very complex transactions and the only way to do all this is to do it CORRECTLY or we might as well not even bother.
BTC-Mining We could have stopped this conversation 2 hours ago if you simply and clearly stated it that way then... Because that is PERFECTLY fine with me.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining lol we talked of this before, I have no way of knowing from the onset what exactly is the form that's clear to you.
BTC-Mining Even with 1 month delays or even 1 week delays would be fine with me then...
mircea_popescu Right. Well, I don't think it was wasted time, something tells me this discussion will form precedent for many later discussions. Possibly after we're all dead.
BTC-Mining If you don't want to pronounce yourself on something with unkown variables, just state it. I would then consider it fine.
mircea_popescu Lol you know I could say "if you only asked this two hours ago" just as well :p
BTC-Mining I think I asked something like, would you honor a signed statement? Which you answered as "No". But I guess you were answering to the litteral sense of my question...
* mircea_popescu looks
[22:21] BTC-Mining Will you honor the most recent data available as of who owns what of the ETF should the information be disclosed and you get access to the funds received through it?
[22:21] BTC-Mining I guess would be were I'm getting at.
[22:22] smickles 30 years later?
[22:22] mircea_popescu lol srsly.
[22:22] smickles ;P
[22:22] BTC-Mining Yes.
[22:22] mircea_popescu nope.
BTC-Mining I think that part 2 hours ago is where it happened...
mircea_popescu But you said yes to smickle's 30 years and I said nope.
BTC-Mining No, I stated afterward I answered yes to your "lol srsly" as if it was an answer to my question. I never addressed smickles or what he said at that point.
mircea_popescu Ya well I dropped that part so.
BTC-Mining After that statement, I think it went unnanswered and we kind of dropped getting anything clear out of it =/
mircea_popescu Anyway, I'm going to clean this and put it up for later.
smickles mircea_popescu: do be sure to include my witty remark if you can :)
BTC-Mining Well, if you don't mind, I have 2 final questions.
smickles Oh gawd, I'm going to be in one of your posts looking silly again aren't I?
BTC-Mining Suppose your ETF has 1000 units. Someone has 900 shares and a signed statement from November the 29th. Someone has 100 units and 10 accounts, and 10 statement from the 30th of november for 100 units, one for each of those accounts. You would need the most recent database backup to identify legitimate claims would you not? The first person never sold his 900 units and the other transfered the units from one account to the other to get his 10 statements.
mircea_popescu Transfers have nothing to do with this tho.
smickles I think something flew over your head.
mircea_popescu You for some reason seem to be mixing historical data with active data. I'm not about to delete F.GIGA.ETF entries from the historical records.
BTC-Mining You're going to KEEP the trading data?
smickles It's still a good idea to copy the db dump on dec 1.
mircea_popescu Of course ?!
BTC-Mining I understood it as you were going to delete ALL data...
mircea_popescu FFS. What, am I going to log into twitter and delete tweets ? Contact everyone on irc list to the right ask them to wipe selected lines from their logs ?
mod6 That was a looooong way to get a short distance.
BTC-Mining Mircea, but those twitter/IRC log does not contain who the shares are sent to. And account transfers are not public.
mircea_popescu BTC-Mining think for a moment, logically. In any possible implementation there'd be some dbs which hold records of what has happened. Such as, who transfered what to whom, in sale or otherwise. And also, some records that'd keep balances.
mircea_popescu Conceivably, one'd care to keep these later trimmed seeing how they're pounded possibly 1000s of times a second. One'd not give a shit about the former, and even keep most of them off the active db cause MPEx doesn't need to review trade #5 at any point in November 2012.
mircea_popescu So then ?
BTC-Mining Aye, but that means signed "STAT" statements are not useful at all to prove ownership of anything at any point other than the moment it was created. Meaning you need the actually trading statements to identify legitimate holders.
smickles I know for a fackt that mircea_popescu has a cron job of rm -rf /home/user/mpex/db.sql
mircea_popescu Signed stats do exactly what they do : they show that at time X you had Y. No more, no less. This is the most they could do, too.
BTC-Mining So you would, theoretically, need a database backup to be used in a claim. Signed "STAT" statements are not receivable.
mircea_popescu What's not receivable mean ? They're not negotiable instruments, no. But the chain of dispute is very simple and efficient, let me explain it : I. Person complains about MPEx. Either person has or has not a stat to back their complaint. If they do not, complaint is invalid. II. MPEx reviews complaint. Either it has or it has not ulterior transactions signed by person. If it does the complaint is invalid. End of dispute. There's no guessing involved in any of this.
BTC-Mining Not as in negociable instruments. Receivable has offering any proof of ownership later than the date it was issued.
smickles Wow, you have written policy, don't you, I've gone thru this exact proceeding.
BTC-Mining So you need to keep all transactions data for that, as proof we signed them at a later date.
mircea_popescu smickles yes. BTC-Mining yes.
smickles Clever girl.
BTC-Mining And as such will keep the transactions data for the ETF.
mircea_popescu The transaction (in general, the historical) data was never in discussion.
BTC-Mining When you said you'd delete ALL data for the ETF, I understood it as ALL the data. Including signed transactions...
mircea_popescu I didn't say I delete all data lol. I said the shares are discarded as worthless.
BTC-Mining Wait... let me fetch the bit...
smickles Oh snap, mircea_popescu.
mircea_popescu WTF, delete signed orders create chaos. Heck, why not, let's have fun.
mircea_popescu Lol whazzat smickles ?
smickles He's going to quote you saying something.
mircea_popescu No harm in that eh.
02:18 mircea_popescu BTC-Mining I can't delete "all data" man. the signed stats will forever exist.
04:01 mircea_popescu you were talking about "data being deleted". a customer wanting to push a claim would be in no worse position today, on the 5th of december 2012 or 2015
04:35 mircea_popescu i'm not about to delete f.GIGA.ETF entries from the historical records.
04:37 mircea_popescu what, am I going to log into twitter and delete tweets ?
04:46 mircea_popescu I didn't say I delete all data lol. I said the shares are discarded as worthless
04:47 mircea_popescu wtf, delete signed orders create chaos. heck, why not, lets have fun
Last 1000 lines, every time mircea_popescu said delete. All times UTC.
mircea_popescu Haha fun times.
BTC-Mining Mea culpa I guess. You were talking about how it's unreasonable to keep the data indefinitly. I understood it as all the data. I pointed out I was annoyed by this.
BTC-Mining Keeping the data aside doesn't cost much logistically.
BTC-Mining [21:07] mircea_popescu well, it is kept aside if you keep your stats.
BTC-Mining [21:08] mircea_popescu mpex isn't designed to be a sort of glbse
I completly missed that second line.