Message-ID: <82948428-29a3-e50a-a54a-520a83f39bba@riseup.net>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 11:01:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <22c80504-e648-e021-866e-ca5a5db3b247@riseup.net>
 <bsOJ-OnnA4FutVmPqtg1xY-k0notwX4OqqIpdMsymXR9-KnS2iXGUE8o7kDVeYBMCqAX0v3oEAmiVMhUIB25gupx6l_bLff2_CNsLK_sk-U=@protonmail.com>
From: Chris Belcher <belcher@riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <bsOJ-OnnA4FutVmPqtg1xY-k0notwX4OqqIpdMsymXR9-KnS2iXGUE8o7kDVeYBMCqAX0v3oEAmiVMhUIB25gupx6l_bLff2_CNsLK_sk-U=@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond
 for BIP39 seeds
Precedence: list

Hello ZmnSCPxj,

This is an intended feature. I'm thinking that the same fidelity bond 
can be used to running a JoinMarket maker as well as a Teleport 
(Coinswap) maker.

I don't believe it's abusable. It would be a problem if the same 
fidelity bond is used by two makers in the _same_ application, but 
JoinMarket takers are already coded to check for this, and Teleport 
takers will soon as well. Using the same bond across different 
applications is fine.

Best,
CB

On 01/05/2022 10:43, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning Chris,
> 
> Excellent BIP!
> 
>>From a quick read-over, it seems to me that the fidelity bond does not commit to any particular scheme or application.
> This means (as I understand it) that the same fidelity bond can be used to prove existence across multiple applications.
> I am uncertain whether this is potentially abusable or not.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj