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
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 205A91621
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 6 Jul 2019 01:46:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pg1-f196.google.com (mail-pg1-f196.google.com
[209.85.215.196])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6ADB04C3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 6 Jul 2019 01:46:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg1-f196.google.com with SMTP id z75so4977545pgz.5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=sgcbCBQfL8UnII2v5I+YiW6R90PEMgO6b/5Prnq/Q9k=;
b=S37L38zopUChzmHldNcWD1vghA4kmCx9hENSUke7WIrt/37o9K6EcXudiDasl1V4Or
vkoBGQe8wur/2ISWK6nT5UdcjBOVwyL/7F1fOvXwu2Os62XOICs9ljDG6yXXFgEIRM9w
I+cG3mtlSl+XjXcMxx+NcYhIlEw82043E0vSyrPrWIZhYlDvHEDqScQgDloO9SLtD84E
AuEs5dDDJR6F96NnyJGtT3iIF+ac87d3GwXRlA3BEyxvnC2iuDiF8zdJJqmy+MxldWwq
HLMxuvs0aZyTmLLnpXvgmI3GEYB31WW8cYYj28BjdSMdp/NB0GBj8tboQ1MdbJJYjyq3
ehXQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=sgcbCBQfL8UnII2v5I+YiW6R90PEMgO6b/5Prnq/Q9k=;
b=HYHTtYWunNslNq/mj8IVAeuEsX1Vd1SAeZu5tT/Lwg2RBxyKOkt9hHSkOAtubcBdU5
BBGkg0nJWeS1r4pivjTLfiIv5M7h6w96cM/7Tj8lkhHm2VgWsEydFRnHKAjf+kzpgFHW
4+uiwITUPWawLHMQkAa0mo1ytBQysw1Td/1W1JGSK8qhghx16vraTaxbHOICy3FseC2i
O0ljOYRcqZw0MpdnIjKB6HF5enou/Juj62c+qpdJiuYnzOwxuPSPAeW1s2L1/6xLV7go
S6glgDemyZFr/KXniPmrIJGoPnSijKfJCjPryPeASDiZikFRqhUEn1zbwQMLuKMUjISG
aoiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWrtz8zVFAEtKVpe6T8NKQEDm9fy3OkGA2H+1FU0sXBGBDvBRjr
97tCtMdbYu25HIpdrSG4umvvaQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz150sfh2w1S51cpjWaaCRQhcp7cASD9koT4fSAEN3GyVJVFh5Dd6fbJUrtZv5C6K0Kt9cXpA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:3ac2:: with SMTP id
b60mr9075408pjc.74.1562377606914;
Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:a080:16bb:cc2:2a58:54e6:f4ef?
([2601:600:a080:16bb:cc2:2a58:54e6:f4ef])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
h12sm10390599pje.12.2019.07.05.18.46.46
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <0851B842-34A1-427F-95DC-A1D6AB416FB9@voskuil.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 18:46:45 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <91607BB7-B57E-4F28-9DDF-D22B8E98739B@voskuil.org>
References: <0DBC0DEA-C999-4AEE-B2E1-D5337ECD9405@gmail.com>
<A64C3DCB-10CE-45EA-9A1B-7E3D13DF90EA@gmail.com>
<6B9A04E2-8EEE-40A0-8B39-64AA0F478CAB@voskuil.org>
<SEQmsx6ck79biVthBbBk1b9r9-R45sBwqWrv3FewQIBl4J18sOlwAPRt8sbTIbrBB8DX538GfwQkU40lyODmEkGSwah_VmbXT8iOr2Jcjlw=@protonmail.com>
<F17F2E86-BFA4-456E-85F9-0D6583692AEC@voskuil.org>
<kSCa9KUmpJox2_aglqhel-WdGlXf14mfKNZ95T4xqsrkQJ2Zh5zFA-Llq-j9cXX87iEPP5_aCkO9oR5kfQGKMBK9ds3Jct1V1FAawwa4CyE=@protonmail.com>
<B853EDF2-8A8A-44B0-A66E-F86175E61EDA@voskuil.org>
<4mT6iC4Va7Afg15a5NLbddAnF2a_vAcQSXYr_jg_5IyEK2ezblJff7EJZakoqvp4BJlLitt9Zlq1_l5JadR0nVss7VDPW-pv8jXGh7lkFC4=@protonmail.com>
<A1ADD0BB-F62F-47AF-B043-53BDF3A88CC3@voskuil.org>
<UyUISFwgh_-KtxpCJonltkqTvVbI9-NBukizE8tKSjB2V12otZiCWQ64sn8oqYk5NDftNHxW3koT9EPOWwVrOkXTP8Dqc-0W0wPGRK-wT34=@protonmail.com>
<0851B842-34A1-427F-95DC-A1D6AB416FB9@voskuil.org>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 12:48:29 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized covenants with taproot enable
riskless or risky lending,
prevent credit inflation through fractional reserve
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 06 Jul 2019 01:46:48 -0000
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 18:28, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On Jul 5, 2019, at 17:17, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> Good morning Eric,
>>=20
>>> But it=E2=80=99s worth noting that early recovery of the UTXO entirely e=
liminates the value of the time lock cost to the ad market. The most obvious=
example is one encumbering the coin to himself, then releasing it with his o=
wn two signatures whenever he wants. In other words, there is no encumbrance=
at all, just a bunch of pointless obscurantion.
>>=20
>> You still do not understand.
>> I strongly suggest actually reading the post instead of skimming it.
>=20
> I am responding to the cryptoeconomic principles, not the implementation d=
etails. Based on your comments here I am not misrepresenting those principle=
s.
>=20
> For example, I have shown that the multisig unlock implementation reduces t=
he presumably-encumbered UTXO to simply a UTXO. You have not disputed that. I=
n fact below you have accepted it (more below).
>=20
>> The advertisement is broadcast to new nodes on the ad network if and only=
if its backing UTXO remains unspent.
>> Once the UTXO is spent, then the advertisement is considered no longer va=
lid and will be outright deleted by existing nodes, and new nodes will not l=
earn of them (and would consider it spam if it is forced to them when the UT=
XO is already spent, possibly banning the node that pushes the advertisement=
at them).
>>=20
>> Thus the locked-ness of the UTXO is the lifetime of the advertisement.
>=20
> The term =E2=80=9Clocked=E2=80=9D here is misused. A unspent output that c=
an be spent at any time is just an unspent output. The fact that you can =E2=
=80=9Cunencumber=E2=80=9D your own coins should make this exceedingly obviou=
s:
>=20
>> Once you disencumber the coins (whether your own, or rented) then your ad=
vertisement is gone; forever.
>=20
> As I have shown, there is no *actual* encumbrance.
>=20
>> Your advertisement exists only as long as the UTXO is unspent.
>=20
> Exactly, which implies *any* UTXO is sufficient. All that the ad network r=
equires is proof of ownership of any UTXO.
>=20
> Unspentness is not actually a necessary cost (expense). All coin is always=
represented as UTXOs. If one has a hoard of coin there is no necessary incr=
emental cost of identifying those coins to =E2=80=9Cback=E2=80=9D ads.This i=
sn=E2=80=99t altered by the proposed design.
>=20
> The only cost would be to have a hoard that one does not otherwise desire,=
representing an opportunity cost. Yet, as I have also pointed out, the amou=
nt of that opportunity cost can simply be spent (or burned) by the advertise=
r, representing the same cost. So covering the case where one cannot raise t=
he capital to =E2=80=9Cback=E2=80=9D one=E2=80=99s ad does not require renta=
l, as the cost of the otherwise rental can just be spent outright.
>=20
> Presumably it would be ideal to transfer the value of those spends to peop=
le who provably present the ads for effective viewing (i.e., the AdWords bus=
iness model). It is of course this market-driven cost of presenting an ad th=
at provides the spam protection/definition for AdWords.
It=E2=80=99s worth pointing out at this point that this implies Google, etc.=
would achieve the same result by simply accepting Bitcoin for ad placement.=
In your model the advertiser is paying only for access to people who wish t=
o avoid spam, not for targeted and actual placement. In other words your ad s=
ystem would be directly competing with others that provide material addition=
al value for the advertiser beyond anti-spam. If nothing else this implies t=
he return on coin =E2=80=9Clock-up=E2=80=9D would be exceeded by its opportu=
nity cost.
> Best,
> Eric
>=20
>> Regards.
>> ZmnSCPxj
|
