| diana_coman: | so now it takes ChanServ ~1hour to set +v mode?? jeez. | [08:32] |
| bvt: | diana_coman: my irssi config does not login to NickServ, on which +v depends | [08:43] |
| diana_coman: | bvt: ahh, that makes at least some sense then, ok. | [08:58] |
| diana_coman: | bvt: but hm, you don't have then set to change name if not logged in either? ie someone else can in principle squat your nick ? | [09:01] |
| bvt: | isn't the nick-squatter kicked/renamed when i do login to nickserv? | [09:04] |
| diana_coman: | bvt: I would think so though I don't know; afaik there's some flag/option to have the squatter renamed if not logged in within some timeframe; the point being that you don't want squatting, not as much that you want to have a way to get back your nick when you do get online, or at least that's how I see it. | [09:19] |
| bvt: | ok, i have just enabled this setting (SET ENFORCE ON). ty for notification, will see how it goes now. | [09:24] |
| diana_coman: | np | [09:27] |
| diana_coman: | BingoBoingo: looking at the qntra listing on mpex I realised that you are actually on a board with MP at least so re overall management you should talk to him and clarify any issues, no? Is the situation with cazalla clarified/set somehow (as the mpex listing still says he's the editor in chief, huh)? | [09:29] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: I'm planning to read S.H. Bucher's translation of Aristotle's Poetics. Please let me know if I should read a different translation. | [10:24] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: should be all right; for a second pass and to get a bit more used to a better workout with a text, it's worth you look afterwards at the version on perseus with the additional notes and context (it's also a different translation so all the better for noticing the differences & similarities). | [10:51] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: cool, I look forward to the workout. | [12:14] |
| BingoBoingo: | diana_coman: The cazalla situation was handled through a repurchase of his share block, noted in the October 2015 statement. | [12:28] |
| BingoBoingo: | diana_coman: mircea_popescu, per the last discussion on Qntra, | [12:29] |
| ossabot: | (trilema) 2020-01-25 mircea_popescu: ideally, let's revisit the plans wrt attracting writers and improving circulation, and their respective state of implementation. | [12:29] |
| BingoBoingo: | wants to see concrete plans and their implementation with respect to increasing circulation and attracting writers. He's also made it clear that he wants me to get started with the implementation of plans and collection of measurements before I've got enough to reopen the conversation with him, because otherwise I'd just be doing that thing I tend to fall into with words instead of offering concretes. | [12:29] |
| BingoBoingo: | It isn't the case that I don't want or don't value the man's input. The case is that until I remediate these foundational holes, I can't bring enough to the table for the input to be anything other than a repetition of the standing orders to remediate these foundational holes. | [12:55] |
| BingoBoingo: | offers this draft for review http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=KGzb | [14:53] |
| BingoBoingo: | uncertain whether the immediate short term and less immediate short term ought to merit their own treatments | [14:58] |
| jfw: | I've got no article still, but it's moving so I think I'll press on. | [15:15] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: sounds like a plan; & good luck! | [15:18] |
| jfw: | thanks! | [15:19] |
| diana_coman: | BingoBoingo: ok, that fills in the picture at least, I hadn't followed Qntra in that detail; the good news is that your "management" part is therefore slimmer actually - you simply have the chief-editor management rather than overall. | [15:20] |
| diana_coman: | http://ossasepia.com/2020/04/21/ossasepia-logs-for-25-Feb-2020#1019386 - hm, what did you start with and how did you work from there? | [15:27] |
| ossabot: | Logged on 2020-02-25 14:53:55 BingoBoingo: offers this draft for review http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=KGzb | [15:27] |
| diana_coman: | BingoBoingo: how useful do you consider that draft plan to be to you as it currently stands? | [15:28] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: do you have that outline for review today? | [15:31] |
| diana_coman: | lol, the sound of silence | [15:34] |
| dorion: | diana_coman here's what I have : http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=k9CA | [15:37] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: a. you clearly mean history of Bitcoin, not generically like that b. the point in the introduction make more sense in the exact opposite order - do you see why? | [15:44] |
| diana_coman: | the 2 points* | [15:44] |
| diana_coman: | what you have otherwise is mostly a timeline with some headings of your own; do you mean it as a timeline or do you intend to add more to it - if yes, what? (because while dates are supposedly easy to check, comments/additions can make or break the whole thing really) | [15:46] |
| dorion: | diana_coman I see what you mean about the introduction since finance and commerce existed way before Bitcoin. | [15:46] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: yes; and moreover, to the extent that you *want* precisely to talk to an audience as wide as you can, you *want to* start from the familiar and move on to the new, not the other way around! | [15:47] |
| dorion: | diana_coman right. regarding adding more, I'm primarily going to add links to properly reference. | [15:50] |
| diana_coman: | links are needed, certainly; and shouldn't be problematic, no. | [15:51] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: there is one oddity though | [15:51] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: your 2 first headings (birth+infancy; early power rangers) are of one type (ie you identify some eras in there, fine) but the third one is of a different type (you identify basically a different area that btc extended too/started growing in) | [15:52] |
| diana_coman: | both are fine and good and potentially useful, but you shouldn't mix them in the same listing as if they were the same sort of distinction - because they are not. | [15:54] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: also, the early power ranger history actually looks rather thin, hm | [15:56] |
| diana_coman: | possibly it's simply early power ranger and market development history, really | [15:56] |
| dorion: | diana_coman hm. it seems the first two cover some technical points and some of the people doing the technical work on the Bitcoin software itself, while later is people using the software and to build an economy around. | [15:57] |
| dorion: | re early power ranger history, the first technical point I pointed out in my presentation was the multisig soft fork which was implemented in 2012. | [15:59] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: that is precisely the expansion/growth I was noting earlier, yes; it started as a proof of concept and the initial focus was on the software (sadly it even lasted for longer than it should have, at that, but this is aside); it took quite a while until the environment (as a whole because yes, it can't be just the software ever) was anywhere near some sort of recognisable forms or organising for commerce - and even then it's ... | [16:01] |
| diana_coman: | ... quite debatable if anyone worth anything would call glbse commerce, ahem | [16:01] |
| diana_coman: | this is the sort of trouble you risk running into there as soon as you aim to qualify the events rather than simply collect and structure them at most: you'll need to know very well what words you use and why exactly, going quite beyond what the various things/people called themselves at that time. | [16:02] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: basically you need on one hand the full timeline without added stuff; then, based on that, you can go ahead and look at it from technical, financial, political perspective (to the extent you can neatly separate those, which will be at least at times quite tough anyway) | [16:04] |
| diana_coman: | the timeline is one and arguably can be extracted at a reasonable granularity so it's documented well and not disputed; however, different events will certainly have different importance and will require more or less or different context depending on which of the three perspectives you are focusing on | [16:06] |
| diana_coman: | taking only the financial perspective, it's one thing to have the initial flurry "everyone can make an exchange nao" (of which Mt.Gox is arguably simply the most prominent example but not otherwise alone or something so hm re missing stuff there) and it's another thing to have actual finance people moving in. | [16:09] |
| dorion: | diana_coman ok. if I understand correctly, start the article with the timeline and finish with commentary ? I agree that the three categories overlap quite a bit. one big challenge seems to be explaining how they overlap. | [16:10] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: the trouble is not the fact that they overlap per se; the trouble is that you make again an enumeration of different things; hm, something is not quite fully getting over to you there and I'm not sure what/how much. | [16:11] |
| dorion: | diana_coman it seems a question I have to answer clearly for myself and the reader is why do I bring up the three perspectives ? | [16:12] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: hm, do you see your three categories there to correspond to the three perspectives? | [16:15] |
| diana_coman: | the first simply read like a timeline really; if you aimed instead to make it "the technological perspective" then why is it focusing on satoshi rather than on ...well, the techological really, all of it? | [16:18] |
| diana_coman: | I realise it's possibly this the disconnect earlier - you considered those three groups to stand for the 3 perspectives and while I noticed it for the 3rd, it didn't even register for the first 2, huh. | [16:19] |
| dorion: | diana_coman I think if someone wants to understand Bitcoin, they need to consider each category. | [16:19] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: sure, that is nice and fine; but then take each in turn and follow it through the full timeline basically; this is why I was saying earlier that there's one timeline but three quite meaningful perspectives for its discussion | [16:21] |
| ossabot: | Logged on 2020-02-25 16:04:40 diana_coman: dorion: basically you need on one hand the full timeline without added stuff; then, based on that, you can go ahead and look at it from technical, financial, political perspective (to the extent you can neatly separate those, which will be at least at times quite tough anyway) | [16:21] |
| diana_coman: | so if you want to talk techological perspective, follow the code base and all the drama there; when you look at the financial, follow the evolution of trades & exchanges + assorted drama there; if you follow the political, take the actors, their deeds and drama there. | [16:24] |
| diana_coman: | I could easily see *each* of those taking a few thousand words without any trouble - but I have no idea what exactly you want to cover, how deep and - even more importantly - how do you pick and choose there. | [16:26] |
| dorion: | diana_coman ok. the structure shaping in my head is : intro explaining why, timeline 2009-2011, with commentary on the technology, rules and people and people, assets and exchanges. | [16:26] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: btw, how do you link the intro to the timeline exactly? | [16:27] |
| diana_coman: | so intro is finance and commerce routed in trust + basically how trust is in fact still present in bitcoin, except in a shape that is perhaps not that familiar to someone coming from fiat world | [16:28] |
| dorion: | diana_coman I've picked and chosen for the most part by identifying the bigger projects and people. | [16:28] |
| diana_coman: | in itself the above fits together fine; how does it jump though to "and here's the history"? | [16:28] |
| BingoBoingo: | diana_coman: apologies for the delay. I went to move the legs and visit the grocer before getting hungry. | [16:29] |
| BingoBoingo: | diana_coman: With respect to the draft, it reads to me like an enumeration of rough edges with text attached to most of those edges that could readidily be replaced with the string "To Be Determined" | [16:30] |
| diana_coman: | BingoBoingo: http://ossasepia.com/2020/04/21/ossasepia-logs-for-25-Feb-2020#1019392 | [16:32] |
| ossabot: | Logged on 2020-02-25 15:27:46 diana_coman: http://ossasepia.com/2020/04/21/ossasepia-logs-for-25-Feb-2020#1019386 - hm, what did you start with and how did you work from there? | [16:32] |
| dorion: | diana_coman something along the lines of, "building from the basis of trust being established through one's history of promises and actions, here is a timeline of the history of Bitcoin I view to be most important to understand." | [16:33] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: hm, that would logically push a history of *main actors* in bitcoin, ie that's your focus & perspective really. | [16:34] |
| diana_coman: | I suspect you are pretty much mixing there at least 3 topics and that's why it ends up pushing in different directions at each step; you have "trust in the bitcoin world" (or perhaps ~how bitcoin changed trust determinations), "timeline of bitcoin", "politics, tech and markets in the btc environment" | [16:37] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: does the above make sense to you? | [16:39] |
| BingoBoingo: | diana_coman: I started from Qntra's lacks and tried to sweep out from there what other edges are going to be encounted in trying to fill those lacks. | [16:39] |
| dorion: | diana_coman I think that is a better description. I mainly focused on the people and commented on the some of the underlying aspects to provide context on the people. | [16:41] |
| diana_coman: | BingoBoingo: myeah, it shows; listen, there's a marked difference between growth and expansion on one hand vs reducing loss on the other. | [16:43] |
| diana_coman: | you planned for the last and you should plan for the first; why are you so concerned with leaks and all that, when there isn't even a proper boat to speak of? | [16:43] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: it's fine to focus on that but then focus explicitly and purposefully ie first of all the focus should be clear *for you*, second you should be mindful of it so it really drives & shapes the content, third you should keep to it once clearly identified so the result is consistent and fully delivering on its aim instead of ending up a scattering of different bits and pieces. | [16:45] |
| diana_coman: | getting back to the trees discussion, if you aim therefore on identifying and talking of the main actors, then it's *them* that end up as main nodes in your tree and the rest flows from there; sure, context is needed of course but it will come then second, not first. | [16:46] |
| BingoBoingo: | Alright, so I need to walk back from the edges and set the lens strictly on the growth and building at this point? | [16:47] |
| dorion: | diana_coman thanks for hammering it home. I think my bad habit of loose language usage is the root of the scatter. | [16:47] |
| dorion: | diana_coman ok re tree restructuring. | [16:48] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: quite likely; and btw, it potentially stores further trouble if unchecked, because it makes communication with you quite unreliable on both ends ie you think you said something but you said something else and it can take a while - in the happy case!- until either you or the other party figures out the misunderstanding (if it gets figured out...) | [16:49] |
| diana_coman: | BingoBoingo: you have the high-level/long-term aims even clearly stated already, as it turns out, here | [16:51] |
| ossabot: | Logged on 2020-02-25 12:29:05 BingoBoingo: diana_coman: mircea_popescu, per the last discussion on Qntra, | [16:51] |
| diana_coman: | BingoBoingo: so that's what you set your eyes on and then you look at *everything and the devil's own kin* that might get you even in the slightest closer to that, yes? | [16:51] |
| dorion: | diana_coman good point. | [16:51] |
| BingoBoingo: | Alright. Gotta flesh out those unknowns with all of the things to try for growth | [16:53] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: based on the above discussion and your existing outline, I'd really much rather see from you a draft that implements it all (can be a draft of the article, not necessarily of the outline again but please do make sure you either do as discussed or ask for further clarification/discussion where and what it's not making sense/fit/whatever) and gets another review rather than a published article; does this sit well with you? | [16:54] |
| diana_coman: | BingoBoingo: you have the aims; you have some known-to-work previous attempts; you have some known-to-fail previous attempts; there's the whole world in between; include the first, steer away from the second (and anything similar in *nature* to it); bring in *anything* and as much as you can glimpse even if unclearly from the third; does this make any sense? | [16:56] |
| dorion: | diana_coman it does. my goal will be drafted article. I'll consider a bit further update you on my deadline. | [16:56] |
| BingoBoingo: | diana_coman: Thank you, it seems to make sense. I'll give it another go. | [16:57] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: all right; take your time - as long as it's productive ; and talk /ask at any point or stage as soon as just taking the time is not that productive, the focus is on getting to do it right, not on sticking to the previous plan even when it stops fitting or something. | [16:59] |
| diana_coman: | BingoBoingo: good; so version 2 should have two main headings, namely A. improving circulation B. Attracting writers , ok? And at B I'll say it plainly that I think it includes the "and growing writers", just so it's not lost on the way. | [17:03] |
| BingoBoingo: | Ok | [17:03] |
| dorion: | diana_coman ok, and thank you. | [17:09] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: EOD Report: G: I got along well with the mechanic, got his contact, and found out he lives quite close to me. WTI: I'll try to keep meeting handy people. B: I started working on my writing too late, and did not finish producing an outline. WTI: Start writing a little earlier, it can't be the last task I do before going to sleep. | [23:42] |
Comments feed: RSS 2.0