Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:17:29 +0000
To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <XdgBBHV0DwSOE9KMoCixmuFY1FpTLsoyhrPpE7zPI16nkUyGOAj_AMzi98jMCx8gAKYQdl4fodOIFFL8rpV7yCXT6XiiqvWk7bbFSyFaNUU=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGpPWDbquYT4gm_eKTrtsHsCNRf2fU0gvHOz--jRVhVgUzFHYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANLPe+OZ33vcZheOyo2RdrvWzQvj3RzZc6sHTafGwbqEG2G4pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <0642a5e59464779569f9d0aab452ee27@willtech.com.au>
 <96471a093e3c3d9862c3d47ebe731df6@willtech.com.au>
 <CANLPe+Nc6ehatESSuS5jFXU-wammBSOe5GRjn45n8BAr90TPOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a54b2632d9b20f9330cf129706f5c886@willtech.com.au>
 <CAGpPWDYGheCFZS67agC=wVvrrC2VNunQs-LqCa=V34bAQYBosg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLPe+OA1ddkfRYLsA25GZkw9=+AMni99Nsz31-PUHdEB--R+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDbquYT4gm_eKTrtsHsCNRf2fU0gvHOz--jRVhVgUzFHYQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft-BIP: Ordinal Numbers
Precedence: list

> I really don't see a world where bitcoin goes that route. Hiding coin amo=
unts would make it impossible to audit the blockchain and verify that there=
 hasn't been inflation and the emission schedule is on schedule. It would i=
nherently remove unconditional soundness from bitcoin and replace it with c=
omputational soundness. Even if bitcoin did adopt it, it would keep backwar=
ds compatibility with old style addresses which could continue to use ordin=
als.

Nit: it isn't technically correct to say that amount hiding "inherently rem=
oves unconditional soundness". Such commitments can be either perfectly hid=
ing or perfectly binding; it isn't even logically possible for them to be b=
oth, sadly. But we are not forced to choose perfect binding; El Gamal commi=
tments, for example, are perfectly binding but only computationally hiding.