2022-07-28 08:02:45 <veltas      > neuro_sy`, KipIngram: Yeah SMUDGE I've seen. I might use a wordlist or similar though
2022-07-28 08:04:38 <veltas      > KipIngram: In my opinion the feature of crypto/blockchain etc is you automate consensus of trust/truth. The downside is the wasted energy
2022-07-28 08:05:54 <veltas      > I don't think it's worth it, as an alternative model you should have authorities, maybe they can sign stuff cryptographically etc, everyone shares relevant info and 'trust' becomes a real thing decided on by people
2022-07-28 08:07:41 <veltas      > Given how unnecessary, bloated, and wasteful the proof-of-work blockchains are I'm amazed it hasn't been universally adopted by our society
2022-07-28 08:09:30 <veltas      > I also don't think proof-of-work consensus is a good thing. Consensus in bitcoin e.g. is/was just a handful of Chinese companies. Even if it was more democratic it still wouldn't make it good/fair. There's no algorithm for trust, it's up to an individual
2022-07-28 09:13:18 <neuro_sy`   > I'm very mixed about the whole thing. "Authorities (multiple of them)" are sometimes not trustworthy. I'm not sure about the wasted energy argument. I think there's so much more energy wasted already with GPUs for machine learning in advertisement etc. You could say the same for the wasted energy by people in using apps like TikTok or crap fastfood designed to be addictive (selling sugar drinks).
2022-07-28 09:14:23 <neuro_sy`   > The traditional payment systems also spending a lot of energy, if you count the offices, personel, their salaries and time taken from their lives just to keep payment processing systems up and running.
2022-07-28 09:15:57 <neuro_sy`   > Same could have (and was said?) about personal computers. I guess some people claimed it's too much cost and even useless to have a computer at each home.
2022-07-28 09:16:30 <neuro_sy`   > (Back in 60s or something)
2022-07-28 09:21:53 <neuro_sy`   > As for 51% attack, if I'm not mistaken, acquiring 51% doesn't automatically allow you to modify the ledger easily. It's still extremely costly to make any change, which would be most likely noticed by the victims in the network, resulting in a social correction of the ledger (possibly in the form of a fork).
2022-07-28 10:23:56 <KipIngram   > Interesting.
2022-07-28 10:23:58 <KipIngram   > https://digitalcorpora.org/
2022-07-28 10:24:17 <KipIngram   > That's just a huge batch of data of various kinds, for folks to use to test tools, AI, etc.
2022-07-28 10:24:37 <KipIngram   > Someone on a work phone call I'm listening to just mentioned it.
2022-07-28 10:45:03 <veltas      > neuro_sy`: You're right authorities aren't always trustworthy, also when I say 'authorities' I really mean ideally any group that wishes to be one
2022-07-28 10:45:26 <veltas      > Of course in reality they will be attached to governments etc, with a few independent ones with different goals
2022-07-28 10:45:32 <veltas      > Having a mix is good IMO
2022-07-28 10:46:25 <veltas      > What I will say is that payment systems etc are inherently more efficient than these proof based decentralised systems
2022-07-28 10:46:41 <veltas      > Or rather the proof-of-work based systems are inherently inefficient
2022-07-28 10:47:43 <veltas      > If you allow the free market to just take over then capitalism will just waste the energy perfectly happily. I personally prefer a system with tasteful regulation... if such a thing is possible
2022-07-28 10:48:01 <thrig       > 180 proof takes some doing
2022-07-28 10:53:06 <veltas      > The 51% attack is absolutely exploitable, despite the cost and complications. And there are reasons people might want to do it, even broad groups of people not necessarily a small group of companies
2022-07-28 10:53:50 <veltas      > At the end of the day the coin has a trust component, and so does systems that are much cheaper energy-wise
2022-07-28 10:55:47 <KipIngram   > veltas: Certainly a "blind trust" based system would be more efficient than a system that required effort to establish some kind of "algorithmic trust."  So long as we can *trust8 the government to manage the currency in our best interests, that's going to be the most efficient scheme.  I just think you can't (really trust them, that is).  There's really  no telling what their real agenda is when they execute
2022-07-28 10:55:49 <KipIngram   > their management maneuvers.
2022-07-28 10:56:17 <KipIngram   > They're *supposed* to be operating in the best interests of "the people," but I think we only get that to some limited extent.
2022-07-28 10:56:26 <veltas      > I don't blindly trust the government, or the algorithm. There are considerations always
2022-07-28 10:56:34 <KipIngram   > I think there's plenty of "operating in the best interests of rich special interest groups.
2022-07-28 10:56:41 <KipIngram   > Fair enough.
2022-07-28 10:56:58 <veltas      > But the model to deal with the fact that not everyone is always trustworthy isn't really solved by the algorithm, and that is its excuse for being extremely energy inefficient
2022-07-28 10:57:10 <KipIngram   > I'm just pointing out that that there's a difference between "pure trust" and "proof of work."
2022-07-28 10:57:32 <KipIngram   > No argument there - it IS extremely energy inefficient.  Extremely.
2022-07-28 10:57:39 <KipIngram   > Unworkably so.
2022-07-28 10:57:40 <veltas      > bitcoin is like the bloated cloud version of currency, it's very un-forthy, IMO. Not that that's a serious argument but it does chime with me
2022-07-28 10:57:44 <veltas      > Of course
2022-07-28 10:57:51 <veltas      > Not unworkable in all situations though
2022-07-28 10:58:14 <KipIngram   > It's *interesting*, and it does prove that it is possible to cut government out of it.  But it won't scale.
2022-07-28 10:58:32 <KipIngram   > Doesn't really solve the problem.
2022-07-28 10:58:37 <KipIngram   > It's a toy model.
2022-07-28 10:58:38 <thrig       > haven't really seen the government cut out of anything
2022-07-28 10:58:43 <veltas      > It's very extreme, but so is the scenario where i.e. the dollar collapses. Currency trust in that sense is always dealing with "maybe but probably(?) hopefully not"
2022-07-28 10:59:05 <KipIngram   > Well, they're not going to let that happen, are they?  What I meant was that they can't just decide what the quantity of bitcoin is going to be.
2022-07-28 10:59:15 <KipIngram   > That quantity is going to be what it's going to be, by design.
2022-07-28 10:59:20 <KipIngram   > Everyone knows what to expect on that front.
2022-07-28 10:59:32 <KipIngram   > No committee can suddenly just increase the bitcoin supply by 30% or something like that.
2022-07-28 10:59:37 <veltas      > Well what I will say is they can decide one thing, they can make decisions that make the value near-0
2022-07-28 10:59:46 <veltas      > Like outlawing it
2022-07-28 10:59:51 <KipIngram   > Sure, they...
2022-07-28 10:59:53 <KipIngram   > right.
2022-07-28 11:00:03 <KipIngram   > I was about to say that.  They can't be deprived of "power."
2022-07-28 11:00:17 <veltas      > Which they might do if the dollar was especially weak and people were escaping wealth via bitcoin
2022-07-28 11:00:20 <KipIngram   > But they don't have the same "detail level control" that they do over the dollar supply.
2022-07-28 11:00:32 <veltas      > So think extreme scenarios if you want to know the true value, it's all relevant
2022-07-28 11:00:35 <KipIngram   > That's the only point I was trying to make.
2022-07-28 11:00:41 <veltas      > Yeah I understand
2022-07-28 11:01:04 <veltas      > I'm just trying to make the case that ultimately bitcoin is a waste of energy. I don't expect to convert people immediately but I hope to be a seed of doubt
2022-07-28 11:01:34 <KipIngram   > Honestly, I think that even if someone comes up with the perfect system (energy efficient, etc. - I have no idea what it would be), ultimately the government won't ALLOW the money supply control to be taken from them.
2022-07-28 11:01:51 <KipIngram   > If something actually starts to work, and starts to scale, they'll do something to keep their finger in the pie.
2022-07-28 11:02:20 <KipIngram   > Probably the main reason they haven't regulated bitcoin more than they have is that they view it as no real threat.
2022-07-28 11:02:26 <KipIngram   > Not something that can ever "get major."
2022-07-28 11:02:50 <veltas      > The perfect is the enemy of the good
2022-07-28 11:02:51 <KipIngram   > Controlling the money supply - that's POWER.
2022-07-28 11:02:57 <KipIngram   > People don't give up power.
2022-07-28 11:03:45 <KipIngram   > You have to take it from them, and I see no sign whatsoever that we're capable of coming to enough agreement in our current bipolar culture to force through anything that puts the brakes on government power.
2022-07-28 11:04:25 <veltas      > The efficient freedom-loving digital solution is centralised currencies, and you can freely exchange between them. But I don't even want that
2022-07-28 11:04:27 <KipIngram   > We still get to vote, but we're so split, on practically everything, that we don't actually take good advantage of that right.
2022-07-28 11:05:04 <veltas      > Too much 'freedom' in a purely abstract sense really just means "I am willing to let bad people oppress me, instead of the state that I can at least criticise or negotiate with civilly"
2022-07-28 11:05:16 <KipIngram   > I agree.
2022-07-28 11:05:24 <KipIngram   > That's exactly what the corporations are doing to us now.
2022-07-28 11:05:30 <veltas      > Of course not all states, or any states, can be negotiated with civilly, but my ideal is a civil state
2022-07-28 11:05:38 <KipIngram   > I think "big is bad."  Big business is really just as bad as big government.
2022-07-28 11:05:47 <veltas      > Yeah that's what regulation is for
2022-07-28 11:05:50 <KipIngram   > Should equally well be subject to limitations.
2022-07-28 11:06:04 <KipIngram   > In theory - but the big outfits wind up lobbying for the regulations they want.
2022-07-28 11:06:12 <veltas      > Tasteful regulation or response to monopolies is necessary for a well run state IMO
2022-07-28 11:06:21 <KipIngram   > I agree.
2022-07-28 11:06:25 <KipIngram   > 100%
2022-07-28 11:06:37 <veltas      > Yeah self-regulating industry means "cabal"
2022-07-28 11:06:43 <KipIngram   > Yes.
2022-07-28 11:07:02 <KipIngram   > I think the problem sets in as soon as business entities become large enough to "influence the market singlehandedly."
2022-07-28 11:07:18 <KipIngram   > We'd be much better off with an economy comprised of an enormous number of small and medium size businesses.
2022-07-28 11:07:28 <veltas      > That has problems too
2022-07-28 11:07:32 <KipIngram   > Something closer to the "perfect competition" conditions called out in economics 101.
2022-07-28 11:07:35 <veltas      > The supply chain shock was caused by this for example
2022-07-28 11:07:50 <veltas      > Free markets don't solve everything, you need international and state controls
2022-07-28 11:07:57 <KipIngram   > Well, big unexpected events are always going to send ripples through things.
2022-07-28 11:08:06 <KipIngram   > I don't think there is a system immune to that.
2022-07-28 11:08:47 <KipIngram   > Well, I'm in favor of controls to limit size and market dominance.  Beyond that, I'd look at it case by case, and with a skeptical eye.
2022-07-28 11:08:51 <veltas      > You're explaining away stuff that lost loads of people jobs and probably did actual harm on a large scale, which was almost entirely caused by stupid low-level decisions being made as if they were in a vacuum
2022-07-28 11:09:06 <veltas      > It's caused by the free market essentially, it's an interesting case where the market is not the right model
2022-07-28 11:09:09 <KipIngram   > I'm certainly in favor of rational environmental protections.
2022-07-28 11:09:10 <veltas      > So you need controls sometimes
2022-07-28 11:09:19 <KipIngram   > Yes, sometimes.
2022-07-28 11:09:37 <veltas      > Most of the time you want a market, which is really just a name for how free people interact
2022-07-28 11:09:40 <KipIngram   > I'd just like to see us "lean toward less" rather than toward more.
2022-07-28 11:09:58 <veltas      > But sometimes we need top-down control, like in emergencies
2022-07-28 11:10:00 <KipIngram   > Step in "where absolutely necessary."
2022-07-28 11:10:04 <KipIngram   > Sure.
2022-07-28 11:10:12 <KipIngram   > Emergencies / disasters are special cases.
2022-07-28 11:10:17 <veltas      > Well supply chain shock wasn't "absolutely necessary" to step in, so they didn't
2022-07-28 11:10:22 <veltas      > I'm saying they should have stepped in
2022-07-28 11:10:34 <veltas      > Step in where efficient or where it achieves your state's goals
2022-07-28 11:10:39 <KipIngram   > I don't know.  Exactly what would they have done?
2022-07-28 11:10:51 <veltas      > The difficulty is not politicising it or knowing what affects what
2022-07-28 11:10:55 <KipIngram   > I have extreme doubts that a government can run an economy better than it can run itself.
2022-07-28 11:11:46 <veltas      > KipIngram: Forced i.e. chip fabbers to distribute work orders more fairly, and rationed to purchasers to make sure they didn't over-buy or something
2022-07-28 11:11:59 <KipIngram   > Fundamentally I'm a capitalist.  I think it's the system most in tune with individual freedom.  But I see clearly that "total economic freedom" leads to bad results.
2022-07-28 11:12:04 <KipIngram   > So some middle ground is in order.
2022-07-28 11:12:26 <veltas      > KipIngram: Because you're used to modern neo liberalism and cynical 'socialists' that like to sell you back your tax dollars
2022-07-28 11:12:42 <veltas      > The problem is political, truly
2022-07-28 11:12:48 <KipIngram   > I usually vote on the right, but it really burns me when I see right-wing mouthpieces tout freedom phrases while trying to ensure that big corporations get to go right on exploiting us.
2022-07-28 11:13:04 <KipIngram   > Yes, it is.
2022-07-28 11:13:09 <KipIngram   > We're a mess these days.
2022-07-28 11:13:14 <veltas      > Yeah there's no winning at the voting booth
2022-07-28 11:13:22 <KipIngram   > I remember even earlier in my life we were more capable of at least *discussing* things.
2022-07-28 11:13:35 <KipIngram   > Disagreement didn't automatically trigger  hatred the say it does these days.
2022-07-28 11:14:13 <KipIngram   > Anyway, this is one of those non-Forth things that's making people's notifications ping.
2022-07-28 11:14:21 <KipIngram   > Probably not the place for it.
2022-07-28 11:14:34 <KipIngram   > I sense a good bit of agreement between us, even if there are some detail differences.
2022-07-28 11:24:44 <remexre     > on a forthy topic :), does it feel weird to have a addr+len for the PFA instead of just an addr?
2022-07-28 11:26:12 <neuro_sy`   > Out of curiosity, why do you need len?
2022-07-28 11:26:59 <remexre     > I'm doing AoT compilation, and when not doing "image-dumping" (e.g. when bootstrapping the compiler) it's useful, since a lot of stuff that ends up in the data space isn't useful
2022-07-28 11:31:30 <remexre     > I'm looking at all the defining words I've defined so far, and I *think* they'd all work if my CREATE were ( name-addr name-len pfa-len -- ) ? (my CREATE takes a name, CREATE: is the version that parses)
2022-07-28 11:33:37 <Zarutian_HTC> pfa is what again? I take that the ending a stands for address
2022-07-28 11:34:52 <remexre     > parameter field address
2022-07-28 11:35:26 <remexre     > the address that gets pushed for the after-DOES> part of a DOES> word
2022-07-28 11:42:59 <Zarutian_HTC> param field was what I did not recall
2022-07-28 11:44:38 <Zarutian_HTC> you using split dictionary like eForth does or just consolidated like fig forth?
2022-07-28 11:45:12 <remexre     > I don't know the distinction (or the internal details of either of those systems)
2022-07-28 11:47:34 <Zarutian_HTC> in eForth the names of words are kept seperate from the code
2022-07-28 11:48:53 <Zarutian_HTC> in fig-forth they arent. iirc fig-forth word def is: nextWordPtr nameLen name cfa pfa code
2022-07-28 11:50:47 <remexre     > closer to eForth then, I guess; executable code ends up in its own place (I don't depend on having memory that's both executable and writable at the same time), and word headers are not necessarily contiguous with the code field
2022-07-28 11:50:54 <remexre     > er, with the parameter field*
2022-07-28 11:51:20 <remexre     > (and I have 3 CFAs, for each of compilation, interpretation, and execution semantics)
2022-07-28 13:19:40 <remexre     > ah, I just realized that this change would make CREATE just be BUFFER with a different argument order
2022-07-28 13:19:48 <remexre     > ...which, maybe I'm fine with, actually?