In Laura Shin’s reporting on Sammy’s testimony, she describes a setup for monitoring accounts. Sammy had one “trading engine” for running the bets in his betting parlor, and another “risk engine” for checking the bets against account limits for each customer. He claimed that the “risk engine” was slow in responding when the bets hit a limit.
That’s not how computers work. If you’re doing it that way you’re DOING IT ON PURPOSE.
This is one area where software has an intrinsic advantage over paper bookkeeping. On paper you can make a note of the max balance or max allowable expense for each customer, but there’s no automatic way to prevent an overdraft or overbet.
In ANY computer program the FIRST THING YOU DO is set limits. Every variable must have explicit limits, whether constrained by the computer’s memory or constrained by real facts in the real world. EVERY math operation is checked against the relevant limits. The processor will tell you if a number tries to reach infinity or exceed the limits of precision, and your own program must reject a number that breaks the real-world limits you’ve defined.
This is true in monetary calculations and also in geometry and animation.
Real muscles and joints have strict Range Of Motion limits. In real humans these limits are enforced by kinesthetic sensors at each joint that slow down the muscle BEFORE the joint nears its limit. When the muscles fail from polio, or the sensors fail from CP, the joints can overextend and break.
Computer animation applies the same limits. Every joint in the model body has a max and min limit on each of its rotations. When I form up an animation I carefully keep all motions inside the max and min, and the program can be set to enforce those limits automatically.
Software limits are instantaneous, and the loop is generally built so the detection happens BEFORE you try an expenditure or angle change that WOULD hit the limit, just like the kinesthetic sensors in the real body.
If you’re delaying the limit check with separate “engines”, you’re violating BASIC rules of programming. You’re creating an intentional opportunity for cheating.
Come to think of it, old-fashioned betting parlors often had similar devices to slow down the notification of bets so the parlor could frontrun the customers.
= = = = =
BUT: Again, if I had been a juror none of these facts would matter. The only important fact is that Sammy was stealing money from OTHER RICH FUCKHEADS who would have been stealing from him if they got the chance. They were equally immoral, expecting to join the swindle. Like a gang fight, No Humans Involved. Better to let the monsters destroy each other, as long as they’re not sucking money from humans. Many bitcoin fraudsters ARE stealing from ordinary people who don’t own lawyers and accountants and investigators. The crime is clear in those situations.
Polistra's Mill 