Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 21:36:06 +0000
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <olCBTQ6jYBZcIxtLRZP32QmJrLF4j9jfzR5SSXwwUJp-J85H3usIGmNaWT5DIQV9DnuDEl9Noo9nEJ593dpgqipSRAwGkggCB0eHZhuD6nI=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <tG19tbinpV6rx5WtwbP3fIilB3lvJvhoUSpj6eJIw5VKWykeG72TErCvF1ZzVotiLsat0iosK2xdomXMppDK2AzTUe864tQIg5hz4fSuJvw=@protonmail.com>
References: <f3892570-6c45-47ee-2804-9988ff18bdf5@riseup.net>
 <48D4B621-D862-4031-AE43-3F54D34FB0B5@voskuil.org>
 <ipHZZpEipF7oliIh-RlPP2e6rcWkIFW22jEOwaCPIfJUuoDh4JfmzvGC2i7tZK-kT0o0osyxFyWxZKDRZOWI_dqdSWNWOLR7KpN3CsN6BRE=@protonmail.com>
 <01c401d86a5c$956ddbd0$c0499370$@voskuil.org>
 <01d901d86a64$452ef9d0$cf8ced70$@voskuil.org>
 <tG19tbinpV6rx5WtwbP3fIilB3lvJvhoUSpj6eJIw5VKWykeG72TErCvF1ZzVotiLsat0iosK2xdomXMppDK2AzTUe864tQIg5hz4fSuJvw=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 11565511:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond
	for BIP39 seeds
Precedence: list


> > > 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 en=
d 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 claimi=
ng "I
> > > am totally not a bot!!".
> > >
> > > That you use the same piece of gold for money does not preclude me us=
ing
> > > the gold for something else of economic value, like making a nice shi=
ny
> > > advertisement, so I think your analysis fails there.
> > > Otherwise, your analysis is on point, but analyses something else ent=
irely.

Back to this analogy, I think it's imprecise in a way that's important to n=
ot overlook: you cannot re-use the same gold atoms in two different adverti=
sements. 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 i=
t would be similar enough without actually being a covenant scam like you d=
escribed.
>
> > 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 uniqu=
eness constraint (under cryptographic assumptions of difficulty).
>
>
> Indeed.
> I suspect the only reason it is not yet a problem with existing JoinMarke=
t 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 b=
ut not in theory.
> But the theory implies that if somebody does make such software, effectiv=
ely both systems will become joined as effectively only a single identity e=
xists in both systems.
> This may not be a problem either since the intent is that Teleport will o=
bsolete JoinMarket someday, but if other applications start using the same =
scheme without requiring a commitment to a specific application, this may a=
lso effectively render Teleport less useful as well.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
> _______________________________________________

So, general comment: it seems like both you and Eric agree with my uncertai=
n intuition up-thread and therefore do we all agree that the correct soluti=
on (to whatever extent there is one) is something like domain separation ta=
gs, as we discussed earlier? It's still a matter of social consensus: if ap=
pending "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, w=
ell 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 re=
al decentralization in a system.

Cheers,
waxwing/AdamISZ