summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/8c/aac8fe4715bbacb1b81a5165a0141e4e1a1528
blob: 6ca94f7dddae84765de0cd48b8bcd60685d310b4 (plain)
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
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90816C000E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 10 Jul 2021 01:26:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3EF83DEC
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 10 Jul 2021 01:26:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id Pk7Lc-LwdIpc
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 10 Jul 2021 01:26:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch (mail-4325.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.25])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3B3983DEB
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 10 Jul 2021 01:26:24 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2021 01:26:14 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
 s=protonmail; t=1625880381;
 bh=++wpVgAhth6ENN7B9GyezDIFzYpmOlnvcnQU3XTvl+c=;
 h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=QShrF/uPNbRSp/ezvPncZSXkpwMiCufecAc0sC6BRanBL9v9mVKbdIBW5U74EuAEy
 sXs2XiA/h/abWaqzYKAMBRNMNFQ0m8+B8XTh4gt0mGRKDl5mYmsCtB6nMEbhZFCP8w
 Q/qWveLBzILP1GdXhUs3UYtdzbrUIvnFBS1up3QQ=
To: "eric@voskuil.org" <eric@voskuil.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <P3nHrkeDxaIVVC4zqhoNVXPqNQv7id4dyB3tmz8JZ1xo2B2FTaK-lUSQvDuieKUlG4VyfB-gHR__qcLmcJIG5YiDvKasiinwh682x9xJJuI=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <00fb01d77525$7e9913c0$7bcb3b40$@voskuil.org>
References: <CAGpPWDYgYjUp+PRirca-QrbJZxwtyAnaQmr1kLbuKHSs2K+OBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00e201d77518$b8ed8e00$2ac8aa00$@voskuil.org>
 <ZoFreCcyjxc8AE2qCEEsUaxR9JmnqCftuu45MV2K9hcusSnF4hIWQzfs1I3A_2efCF0TMTVzGOata5RZfR_hLz0i4wuWO-JTfU9vqbEuxYY=@protonmail.com>
 <00fb01d77525$7e9913c0$7bcb3b40$@voskuil.org>
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>,
 'Billy Tetrud' <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proof of reserves - recording
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 10 Jul 2021 01:26:26 -0000

Good morning e,

Okay, it seems to me that what you are saying is something like this:

> Proof-of-reserves would (partially) work for a "pure" warehousing service=
 (i.e. user pays some fee, service keeps money and provides proofs that mon=
ey is kept).
> However, "pure" warehousing is not what a typical exchange does (else the=
 explicit fees in their exchanges would be higher), as it takes on risk due=
 to having to deal with non-Bitcoin monopoly money (by definition, since th=
ey are *exchanges*).
> Further, with Bitcoin you can be your own warehouse (including Green-like=
 multisig schemes where you own your own keys that are part of the scheme),=
 which is an alternative choice to hiring a "pure warehouse" (i.e. Safe Dep=
osit).

Would that be a fair (if somewhat rough and undetailed) restatement?

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

> > Good morning e,
>
> Good afternoon Z.
>
> > >     Any expectation of interest implies borrowing, in other words, a =
loan to
> > >
> >
> > the bank.
> > Perhaps this is the key point of contention?
>
> I'm not sure, but from my observations it's long been a point of confusio=
n in Bitcoiner understanding of banking.
>
> To put a finer point on it, Rothbard's criteria is a vague in a couple wa=
ys. Earnings that offset fees are also "interest" in the economic context -=
 in which he writes. So even a zero-interest account (or negative up to the=
 full cost of maintaining the account) qualifies under this criterion. Yet =
he is careful to say "implies". The arrangement may of course be explicit, =
in which case one no longer relies on implied contract, one relies on expli=
cit contract. Finally, one may "expect" no interest, and even pay fees, but=
 it may nonetheless be a loan. This is what contracts are for.
>
> If one contracts for warehousing service, such Safe Deposit, as opposed t=
o a time deposit, such as Certificate of Deposit, Savings Account, or Check=
ing Account, then one gets a warehousing service - full fees and a contract=
ual obligation to maintain 100% of the deposit. There are also money transm=
ission services that move money around for a fee. The inability to distingu=
ish money from credit (including money substitutes) and warehousing from in=
vestment (including "banking") leads directly to false conclusions regardin=
g money and banking. Unfortunately a good number of self-described "Austria=
ns" perpetuate these errors.
>
> > In cases where Bitcoin is given over to an exchange, there is no expect=
ation
> > of interest, at least in the sense that there is no expectation that th=
e number
> > of Bitcoins deposited in the exchange increase over time.
> > (There may be an expectation of an increase in the number of green-ink
> > historical commemoration papers it can buy, but the point is that the n=
umber
> > of Bitcoins held in behalf of the user is not expected to change)
> > The expectation is that exchanges earn money from the difference betwee=
n
> > buy-price and sell-price, and the money-warehousing service they provid=
e is
> > simply provided for free to facilitate their main business (i.e. broker=
s for
> > exchange).
> > Thus, the expectation is that the exchange provides a warehouse service=
,
> > not a bank service, and this service is provided for free since it enab=
les their
> > real business of earning from bid-ask spreads.
>
> I'm not aware of what are people's expectations, nor would I judge what q=
ualifies as someone's "real" business, but a warehouse that facilitates tra=
des for a fee is of course a possible business model. PayPal's intended (re=
al?) business model was to earn from the float. That didn't pan out, becaus=
e people didn't retain money in their transmitter service.
>
> Exchanges that deal in monopoly money must move this through traditional =
finance. This incurs all manner of risk. When someone sends them monopoly m=
oney, there is no crypto-surety possible. This is part of their "reserve" j=
ust as is the other side of trades.
>
> What matters is what people contract for - agree to, voluntarily.
>
> > On the other hand, not your keys not your coins, so anyone who uses suc=
h a
> > warehouse has whatever happens to the funds coming for them...
>
> One of the essential benefits of Bitcoin being that you can be your own w=
arehouse, and be your own money transmitter.
>
> But all production requires investment, which inherently entails letting =
go of your money, producing something with it, and selling it to people for=
 other money. All investment is from someone's "reserve". Full reserve inve=
stment (including banking) is an oxymoron. So whether through exchanges or =
otherwise, there will be production, risk, loss and earnings. Otherwise the=
re will be nothing at all to buy, and all money will be worthless. This ide=
a of assuring that money is fully reserved applies only to that which one d=
oes not invest (one's hoard); it does not apply to banks, or the capital of=
 any other companies. If it can help people feel better about their Safe De=
posit (warehousing), I'm all for it. But if one wants a 20% bitcoin reserve=
, one can certainly place 20% into cold storage.
>
> > And of course exchanges need not earn money just from bid-ask spreads
> > in practice, so they are unlikely to provide proof-of-reserves either.
>
> If they did not earn money as a bank, the explicit cost of their services=
 would be that much higher. Which people prefer is of course entirely up to=
 them. I don't know which is more likely.
>
> > Indeed, money warehousing may very well be provided by means other than
> > proof-of-reserves, such as by using multisig the way Green wallet does,=
 with
> > better security.
>
> Right, this is an aspect of using your own wallet.
>
> > Perhaps "pure exchanges" would be more amenable to such a scheme
> > rather than proof-of-reserves.
>
> Or simply pairing traders, which is of course an existing model.
>
> Best,
> e
>
> > Regards,
> > ZmnSCPxj