Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:32:18 +0000
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live.com.au>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <lQzKUb3esyrfDpI7iAVpOBcpriqEgyPI305Ck08zMrcf8MDlWCn6bwccqgeUghcri2a80b1P4ys_y-W0wubvVpvbihKVUPMJUlYw73ZOl7E=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <PS2P216MB09140E189C0873B4232F54359D6A9@PS2P216MB0914.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <SL2P216MB0089B70AEDD58F2EBC46B4309D9A9@SL2P216MB0089.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <A326C6D2-7C6E-42A2-93C9-DC7647BB09B6@voskuil.org>
 <170b27c0-436f-c440-e3c3-f9577b764972@riseup.net>
 <SL2P216MB00896086AA80DE1A98293C469D989@SL2P216MB0089.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <Wz83obOLCjtbO-rIDw9mHM0ObBrE10y1rLg8vbEyp5BIxtfzlUJyLlnPZ-RWnvsKzJaKRe4bo7hnjlJnwL4-g7HyRNa6TvL_Y-gBQ12ifCg=@protonmail.com>
 <932f2f2866cac087a207f8757c9df4b776ccdb04.camel@willtech.com.au>,
 <4ltFpTt8QxX44nedimzJ7J4F1bIhwxb9rbqf1DeGlYX8W7CduYCy64miuq2IIjee_K5rBV6ofEPzdYQniEq6IR4I7ZO5ENlk9z-mQPs-YZE=@protonmail.com>
 <PS2P216MB09140E189C0873B4232F54359D6A9@PS2P216MB0914.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
Precedence: list

Good morning,

> Good afternoon,
>
> That is not desirable since yourself and I cannot prove the property of t=
he UTXO when it is further spent unless we can ourselves scrutinize it.

What property *needs* to be proven in the first place?

I suspect you are riding too much on your preferences and losing sight of t=
he end goal I am pointing at here.
If your goal is to promote something you prefer (which you selected for oth=
er reasons) then the conclusion will be different.

I already laid out the necessary goal that I consider as necessary:

> The entire point of a public blockchain is to prevent uncontrolled forger=
y of the coin.

Given the above, it is not *necessary* to prove *any* property of *any* UTX=
O other than the property *this UTXO does not create more coins than what w=
as designed*.
The exact value of that coin, the public key of that coin, *when* the coin =
was spent and for *what* purpose are not *necessary*, the only thing necess=
ary to prove is that inputs =3D outputs + fee.
Indeed, the exact values of "inputs" and "outputs" and "fee" are also not n=
eeded to be verifiable, only the simple fact "input =3D outputs + fee" need=
s to be verifiable (which is why homomorphic encryptions of input, output, =
and fee are acceptable solutions to this goal).
It is immaterial if you or I *can* or *cannot* prove any *other* property, =
if the goal is only to prevent uncontrolled forgery.

If your definition of "fraud" is broader, then please lay it out explicitly=
.
As well, take note that as I understand it, this is largely the primary pro=
blem of cryptocurrencies that existed long before Bitcoin did; it is helpfu=
l to remember that Chaumian banks and various forms of e-cash existed befor=
e Bitcoin.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj