Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E135C002D for ; Wed, 4 May 2022 02:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462094026C for ; Wed, 4 May 2022 02:37:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zDjvvz_o80rz for ; Wed, 4 May 2022 02:37:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40138.protonmail.ch (mail-40138.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.138]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEF5D40264 for ; Wed, 4 May 2022 02:37:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 02:37:10 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail2; t=1651631834; bh=vdzCfaiaUEc6jsO9Ri+D8fk1q5LfawYAUX9ka65kYSY=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To: Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=X+jgNHWTiaYPwvBpRUrPoSlOFPxhvUxHhhoudzcq64TcFl6wK+5FSNBlMZYQrTRGG xgHkPtUTZjyZmClbdRlTzysOb9u8VV/FoPDTqFhQ0FECjAdphFQUNft5jcSoW4CRdc 3EgZvABlZVAkmaXTcPynKlnxj+qMItUS/Thv++lAyT22avKukA8QzrjwHBJYx2b9Fx CyoBfAA6Jjnd7XhUtBEMG+BQAcgzIAHVo74TNXxABXuPH3IYjXWDJx3YUn/013p/rn w6op0RZDndHjuvgGrUrQ24yLAQPNkU9ajatAgB2vAHXxJzGjfuWxThP4BpdbC8GI3O 9HfkZVvzTu52w== To: Eric Voskuil From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <48D4B621-D862-4031-AE43-3F54D34FB0B5@voskuil.org> References: <48D4B621-D862-4031-AE43-3F54D34FB0B5@voskuil.org> Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 02:37:19 -0000 Good morning e, > It looks like you are talking about lending where the principal return is= guaranteed by covenant at maturity. This make the net present value of the= loan zero. I am talking about lending where: * Lessor pays landlord X satoshis in rent. * Landlord provides use of the fidelity bond coin (value Y) for N blocks. * Landlord gets the entire fidelity bond amount (Y) back. Thus, the landlord gets X + Y satoshis, earning X satoshis, at the cost of = having Y satoshis locked for N blocks. So I do not understand why the value of this, to the landlord, would be 0. Compare to a simple HODL strategy, where I lock Y satoshis for N blocks and= get Y satoshi back. Or are you saying that a simple HODL strategy is of negative value and that= "zero value" is the point where you actively invest all your savings? Or are you saying that HODL strategy is of some value since it still allows= you to spend funds freely in the N blocks you are HODLing them, and the op= tion to spend is of value, while dedfinitely locking the value Y for N bloc= ks is equal to the value X of the rent paid (and thus net zero value)? Regards, ZmnSCPxj