[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       bitcoin-dev
Subject:    Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond for BIP39 seeds
From:       AdamISZ via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev () lists ! linuxfoundation ! org>
Date:       2022-05-21 21:36:06
Message-ID: olCBTQ6jYBZcIxtLRZP32QmJrLF4j9jfzR5SSXwwUJp-J85H3usIGmNaWT5DIQV9DnuDEl9Noo9nEJ593dpgqipSRAwGkggCB0eHZhuD6nI= () protonmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


> > > 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
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]