1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 769DAC90
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Jul 2019 04:57:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40136.protonmail.ch (mail-40136.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.136])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7BE787D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Jul 2019 04:57:10 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 04:57:03 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1562216227;
bh=M2jifo39TPYMNinKjNApJ8QywJ9eGiQJ1E6uXmcEKZo=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=t0fGmbTNGv++gRppknWuhbXGMSPa7gs+qeWtgRTPWtkn7GYjGCIKla7yhKg3adiuz
8cqwx2Ieofx4nmHrNrmccQn2k2zROjZ2ajHfSvcojZhMcUaawJDixmGkA7qCnwieNj
xxeQod8l6PBufzTaJ7PvE+8UL03MPPNNdDJrkcpA=
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <SEQmsx6ck79biVthBbBk1b9r9-R45sBwqWrv3FewQIBl4J18sOlwAPRt8sbTIbrBB8DX538GfwQkU40lyODmEkGSwah_VmbXT8iOr2Jcjlw=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6B9A04E2-8EEE-40A0-8B39-64AA0F478CAB@voskuil.org>
References: <0DBC0DEA-C999-4AEE-B2E1-D5337ECD9405@gmail.com>
<BF027CD0-FE29-4DD1-AB96-DE92B597AD18@gmail.com>
<3F46CDD5-DA80-49C8-A51F-8066680EF347@voskuil.org>
<A4A6099F-F115-4CBF-B7D5-F16581476126@gmail.com>
<063D7C06-F5D8-425B-80CE-CAE03A1AAD0C@voskuil.org>
<0AA10217-E1CC-46D1-9B43-038CEEF942CD@gmail.com>
<E72C4A8E-F850-400B-B19B-7D06B8A169EC@voskuil.org>
<A64C3DCB-10CE-45EA-9A1B-7E3D13DF90EA@gmail.com>
<6B9A04E2-8EEE-40A0-8B39-64AA0F478CAB@voskuil.org>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 14:46:38 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized covenants with taproot enable
riskless or risky lending,
prevent credit inflation through fractional reserve
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 04:57:11 -0000
Good morning Eric,
> > and thanks to you and ZmnSCPxj we now have two additional uses cases fo=
r UTXOs that are only temporarily accessible to their current owner.
>
> Actually you have a single potentially-valid use case, the one I have pre=
sented. The others I have shown to be invalid (apart from scamming) and no =
additional information to demonstrate errors in my conclusions have been of=
fered.
I presented another use case, that of the "Bitcoin Classified Ads Network".
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-July/017083.ht=
ml
Advertisements are "backed" by an unspent TXO.
In order to limit their local resource consumption, nodes of this network w=
ill preferentially keep advertisements that are backed by higher UTXO value=
s divided by advertisement size, and drop those with too low UTXO value div=
ided by advertisement size.
Thus, spammers will either need to rent larger UTXO values for their spam, =
paying for the higher rent involved, or fall back to pre-Bitcoin spamming m=
ethods.
Thus I think I have presented a use-case that is viable for this and does n=
ot simply devolve to "just burn a 1-satoshi output".
I still do not quite support generalized covenants as the use-case is alrea=
dy possible on current Bitcoin (and given that with just a little more tran=
saction introspection this enables Turing-completeness), but the basic conc=
ept of "renting a UTXO of substantial value" appears sound to me.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
