From: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail•com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond for BIP39 seeds
Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 21:36:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <olCBTQ6jYBZcIxtLRZP32QmJrLF4j9jfzR5SSXwwUJp-J85H3usIGmNaWT5DIQV9DnuDEl9Noo9nEJ593dpgqipSRAwGkggCB0eHZhuD6nI=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <tG19tbinpV6rx5WtwbP3fIilB3lvJvhoUSpj6eJIw5VKWykeG72TErCvF1ZzVotiLsat0iosK2xdomXMppDK2AzTUe864tQIg5hz4fSuJvw=@protonmail.com>
> > > As a better analogy: I am borrowing a piece of gold, smelting it down to make
> > > a nice shiny advertisement "I am totally not a bot!!", then at the end of the
> > > lease period, re-smelting it back and returning to you the same gold piece
> > > (with the exact same atoms constituting it), plus an interest from my business,
> > > which gained customers because of the shiny gold advertisement claiming "I
> > > am totally not a bot!!".
> > >
> > > That you use the same piece of gold for money does not preclude me using
> > > the gold for something else of economic value, like making a nice shiny
> > > advertisement, so I think your analysis fails there.
> > > Otherwise, your analysis is on point, but analyses something else entirely.
Back to this analogy, I think it's imprecise in a way that's important to not overlook: you cannot re-use the same gold atoms in two different advertisements. Use of a fidelity bond, being basically a signature, is completely 'non-rivalrous' as I think the economists say.
> Yes, that is why Tamas switched to defiads, as I had convinced him that it would be similar enough without actually being a covenant scam like you described.
>
> > In any case, I tend to agree with your other posts on the subject. For the burn to be provably non-dilutable it must be a cost provably associated to the scenario which relies upon the cost. This provides the global uniqueness constraint (under cryptographic assumptions of difficulty).
>
>
> Indeed.
> I suspect the only reason it is not yet a problem with existing JoinMarket and Teleport is simply that no convenient software currently exists which allows the same bond to be used by both, thus making it safe in practice but not in theory.
> But the theory implies that if somebody does make such software, effectively both systems will become joined as effectively only a single identity exists in both systems.
> This may not be a problem either since the intent is that Teleport will obsolete JoinMarket someday, but if other applications start using the same scheme without requiring a commitment to a specific application, this may also effectively render Teleport less useful as well.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
> _______________________________________________
So, general comment: it seems like both you and Eric agree with my uncertain intuition up-thread and therefore do we all agree that the correct solution (to whatever extent there is one) is something like domain separation tags, as we discussed earlier? It's still a matter of social consensus: if appending "JM" to the end of a certificate signature is intended to mean that this fidelity bond can only be used in Joinmarket and not anywhere else, well we can only as individual users demand that (i.e. *I* might not accept it in Teleport, but what if Fred down the street does? It's not enough for me to rely on my own criteria!), and more subtly, it makes sense only if we all have an unambiguous definition of what Joinmarket *is* - ironically it is precisely the thing brought most into question by the achievement of real decentralization in a system.
Cheers,
waxwing/AdamISZ
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-21 21:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-01 8:57 Chris Belcher
2022-05-01 9:43 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-01 10:01 ` Chris Belcher
2022-05-01 11:41 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-02 9:23 ` Chris Belcher
2022-05-03 5:26 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-03 18:03 ` Chris Belcher
2022-05-03 18:26 ` Eric Voskuil
2022-05-04 2:37 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-04 4:04 ` eric
2022-05-04 4:19 ` ZmnSCPxj
[not found] ` <01c401d86a5c$956ddbd0$c0499370$@voskuil.org>
2022-05-18 3:06 ` eric
2022-05-18 6:29 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-21 21:36 ` AdamISZ [this message]
2022-05-10 12:31 ` AdamISZ
2022-05-10 16:54 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-10 19:03 ` AdamISZ
2022-05-10 19:28 ` AdamISZ
2022-05-13 10:02 ` Chris Belcher
2022-05-13 12:44 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-15 9:13 ` Chris Belcher
2022-05-16 0:00 ` ZmnSCPxj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='olCBTQ6jYBZcIxtLRZP32QmJrLF4j9jfzR5SSXwwUJp-J85H3usIGmNaWT5DIQV9DnuDEl9Noo9nEJ593dpgqipSRAwGkggCB0eHZhuD6nI=@protonmail.com' \
--to=adamisz@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=ZmnSCPxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox