path: root/e8/3d978ec39d26b38311d59ecef5d371b9a91894

Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6DAEC002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 18 May 2022 03:06:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0909404F3
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 18 May 2022 03:06:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id G5FvqTSVTyzx
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 18 May 2022 03:06:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3A5C404B3
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 18 May 2022 03:06:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id i8so524608plr.13
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 17 May 2022 20:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112;
 h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id
 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index
 :content-language;
 bh=cVpJpDejwjsGzoOYmbMZuIrQRgvyACrIO0H44CJHL08=;
 b=IWCW7f3HuoUFZiq1m8U3ROV5mx1JVrHralf4M8cyLe8rS/bmD3R0DFpjWKEfBiO92C
 kvkOOY9VSayY30QbXJRMfBkvVF0m25GZDmbyH6/Px4KpBtbjvMXphAveTputsFbDaopo
 jSxT7rvSnmyWpDccA7kY5BGPnGu7rVHtKcDo/kbQG4Ss5H6kkKQr2bRmzufphhUyBJJD
 a9n4efCr5b5yIajnwKiU3Il/1CXfAXvdS+x6XnGyH+zBS+sdRysV9mVu8UTC0MlN3hZO
 KCVfV+3LZdUNN5G75hcBuPGEgMqYy5NXyDu21y2ntSTcULBhhN072Xbg/DeL2dH4sBB6
 l7Bg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date
 :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index
 :content-language;
 bh=cVpJpDejwjsGzoOYmbMZuIrQRgvyACrIO0H44CJHL08=;
 b=YvwkYbACyjSEB2ppEoceCFGuAg9FutunoccnPxYUkJW10edtqAL8nc5OKesNVWAkMP
 oJA2g4YX3D+fdJMbVXKfhm/xiOIsqQNG9DSFT5Jc8HiPTEa2cYWq7haW3SoLNb0CGFla
 yrLkauNUL2AxQ/GIFXvfzCNxUqerSHexBBgjGT+OA5jbXrO73jtG9F85fIK0IWkICWQD
 KNQMUVO3Xu5eiiN4TgO/eXJHsME0+qnnhjtbFN4zlZoIeZjR0q8wLC3a81zI9jIhkAyz
 hSqxaRJRsIEGbDPdTkTpmtJtUHlhdbVlYNJnzQ4BYw4QsYRcb8Jhrx+q2uFmreHokHk3
 SzKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533v/d9p0CApOTmTPYruoBpDPFI3UKEJB4ngaje0AQNP9IYtRgRQ
 mYrJaP5VTmBG8MIXkxJbArmXCA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwp0qwxk4MNrhet8PNryFHKwwUqUHio1RVgFdUh0wtoLv2XTxiaMPkqBP0QNCnFufscUDkJDg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:191a:b0:1dc:a3d3:f579 with SMTP id
 26-20020a17090a191a00b001dca3d3f579mr39763291pjg.30.1652843190162; 
 Tue, 17 May 2022 20:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ERICDESKTOP ([50.35.67.197]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
 o3-20020a62cd03000000b0050e006279bfsm475958pfg.137.2022.05.17.20.06.28
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Tue, 17 May 2022 20:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: <eric@voskuil.org>
To: "'ZmnSCPxj'" <ZmnSCPxj@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>
In-Reply-To: <01c401d86a5c$956ddbd0$c0499370$@voskuil.org>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 20:06:29 -0700
Message-ID: <01d901d86a64$452ef9d0$cf8ced70$@voskuil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQNG5FH7rVDDJiwd0yZV2FzKY4oQ/AFkcJ/JAe3DhcICEHJataob22Nw
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion' <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond
	for BIP39 seeds
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: Wed, 18 May 2022 03:06:31 -0000

Good evening ZmnSCPxj,

Sorry for the long delay...

> Good morning e,
>=20
> > Good evening ZmnSCPxj,
> >
> > For the sake of simplicity, I'll use the terms lender (Landlord), =
borrower
> > (Lessor), interest (X), principal (Y), period (N) and maturity =
(height after N).
> >
> > The lender in your scenario "provides use" of the principal, and is =
paid
> > interest in exchange. This is of course the nature of lending, as a =
period
> > without one's capital incurs an opportunity cost that must be offset =
(by
> > interest).
> >
> > The borrower's "use" of the principal is what is being overlooked. =
To
> > generate income from capital one must produce something and sell it.
> > Production requires both capital and time. Borrowing the principle =
for the
> > period allows the borrower to produce goods, sell them, and return =
the
> > "profit" as interest to the lender. Use implies that the borrower is =
spending
> > the principle - trading it with others. Eventually any number of =
others end up
> > holding the principle. At maturity, the coin is returned to the =
lender (by
> > covenant). At that point, all people the borrower traded with are =
bag holders.
> > Knowledge of this scam results in an imputed net present zero value =
for the
> > borrowed principal.
>=20
> But in this scheme, the principal is not being used as money, but as a =
billboard
> for an advertisement.
>
> Thus, the bitcoins are not being used as money due to the use of the =
fidelity
> bond to back a "you can totally trust me I am not a bot!!" assertion.
> This is not the same as your scenario --- the funds are never =
transferred,
> instead, a different use of the locked funds is invented.
>=20
> 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!!".
>=20
> 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.

Ok, so you are suggesting the renting of someone else's proof of "burn" =
(opportunity cost) to prove your necessary expense - the financial =
equivalent of your own burn. Reading through the thread, it looks like =
you are suggesting this as a way the cost of the burn might be diluted =
across multiple uses, based on the obscuration of the identity. And =
therefore identity (or at least global uniqueness) enters the equation. =
Sounds like a reasonable concern to me.

It appears that the term "fidelity bond" is generally accepted, though I =
find this an unnecessarily misleading analogy. A bond is a loan (capital =
at risk), and a fidelity bond is also capital at risk (to provide =
assurance of some behavior). Proof of burn/work, such as Hash Cash (and =
Bitcoin), is merely demonstration of a prior expense. But in those =
cases, the expense is provably associated. As you have pointed out, if =
the burn is not associated with the specific use, it can be reused, =
diluting the demonstrated expense to an unprovable degree.

I can see how you come to refer to selling the PoB as "lending" it, =
because the covenant on the underlying coin is time constrained. But =
nothing is actually lent here. The "advertisement" created by the =
covenant (and its presumed exclusivity) is sold. This is also entirely =
consistent with the idea that a loan implies capital at risk. While this =
is nothing more than a terminology nit, the use of "fidelity bond" and =
the subsequent description of "renting" (the fidelity bond) both led me =
down another path (Tamas' proposal for risk free lending under covenant, =
which we discussed here years ago).

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).

Best,
e

> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj