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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EA8C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 May 2022 11:41:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2271813F4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 May 2022 11:41:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id IDJyp_OCCWsZ
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 May 2022 11:41:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch (mail-4325.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.25])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0194281396
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 May 2022 11:41:55 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 11:41:50 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail2; t=1651405313;
bh=MzPFGNkZPfhiLlOlAdb7idu+aJTRYWew1jhAXty6uEE=;
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=N2kJ+9C+FyHRawrmHQlDKihpyRCE1lqwGymAVfOP0S/9YDTX6F+SF3aRC8Q8qY6Ai
DxCz4eXx5rf1PhbyMx0RdYr96xKW+H4Cev82TrWRxd5/8I0pSg8q7TAC2uCwoGtrI8
S9IkGkF6qnclUSdHx92q1C9OEqMnkL6i7SK0sd8FPCZNGwkUeReVFkKHA3cXgW2e1k
K6YLqIVqkNT2FvbsHJ2MNWcSEWpVOZ2CEV3e+Pvu6WLMQBqo6antNj0V99WPQNpQgP
u8Pgq1b+z5o3UFeUQE6T7L5NSY06nBMQ9BFbmrNcBqSqNU4lF8xBS+O0Zr2JpJWIY9
zJ3JHhfITRniw==
To: Chris Belcher <belcher@riseup.net>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <gp_6EV3OP368tCH4wMFnprOi6AJyQyzK2vZUsm1hIbTKUmfbqh-UaZ4qW_oAAHDgMYdlqGREFgTtdfkPGyzjxdzOiu_R26_rq_phnC1kAi8=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <82948428-29a3-e50a-a54a-520a83f39bba@riseup.net>
References: <22c80504-e648-e021-866e-ca5a5db3b247@riseup.net>
<bsOJ-OnnA4FutVmPqtg1xY-k0notwX4OqqIpdMsymXR9-KnS2iXGUE8o7kDVeYBMCqAX0v3oEAmiVMhUIB25gupx6l_bLff2_CNsLK_sk-U=@protonmail.com>
<82948428-29a3-e50a-a54a-520a83f39bba@riseup.net>
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 <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: Sun, 01 May 2022 11:41:57 -0000
Good morning again Chris,
I wonder if there would be an incentive to *rent* out a fidelity bond, i.e.=
I am interested in application A, you are interested in application B, and=
you rent my fidelity bond for application B.
We can use a pay-for-signature protocol now that Taproot is available, so t=
hat the signature for the certificate for your usage of application B can o=
nly be completed if I reveal a secret via a signature on another Taproot UT=
XO that gets me the rent for the fidelity bond.
I do not know if this would count as "abuse" or just plain "economic sensib=
ility".
But a time may come where people just offer fidelity bonds for lease withou=
t actually caring about the actual applications it is being used *for*.
If the point is simply to make it costly to show your existence, whether yo=
u pay for the fidelity bond by renting it, or by acquiring your own Bitcoin=
s and foregoing the ability to utilize it for some amount of time (which sh=
ould cost closely to renting the fidelity bond from a provider), should pro=
bably not matter economically.
You mention that JoinMarket clients now check for fidelity bonds not being =
used across multiple makers, how is this done exactly, and does the techniq=
ue not deserve a section in this BIP?
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
