Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond for BIP39 seeds

2022-05-03 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
Good morning e, > Good evening ZmnSCPxj, > > For the sake of simplicity, I'll use the terms lender (Landlord), borrower > (Lessor), interest (X), principal (Y), period (N) and maturity (height after > N). > > The lender in your scenario "provides use" of the principal, and is paid > interest

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond for BIP39 seeds

2022-05-03 Thread Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
Good evening ZmnSCPxj, For the sake of simplicity, I'll use the terms lender (Landlord), borrower (Lessor), interest (X), principal (Y), period (N) and maturity (height after N). The lender in your scenario "provides use" of the principal, and is paid interest in exchange. This is of course

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond for BIP39 seeds

2022-05-03 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond for BIP39 seeds

2022-05-03 Thread Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
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. e > On May 3, 2022, at 11:03, Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Hello ZmnSCPxj, > > Such a system will have to be

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond for BIP39 seeds

2022-05-03 Thread Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev
Hello ZmnSCPxj, Such a system will have to be publicly advertised, in the same way we see centralized cryptocurrency staking shops buying ads all over the place. That's how they'll make retail hodlers aware that renting out your coins in this way is possible. If JoinMarket/Teleport users

Re: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV

2022-05-03 Thread Swambo, Jacob via bitcoin-dev
Thanks Darosior for your response. I see now that APOAS (e.g. with ANYONECANPAY and/or SINGLE) and CTV (with less restrictive templates) fall prey to the same trade-off between flexibility and safety. So I retract my statement about that 'point in favour of OP_CTV'. It would be nice to by-pass

Re: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV

2022-05-03 Thread Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev
Antoine, One high level reason to not prefer APO is that it gets 'dangerously close' to fully recursive covenants. E.g., just by tweaking APO to use a Schnorr signature without PK commitment, Pubkey Recovery would be possible, and fully recursive covenants could be done. Short of that type of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to do when contentious soft fork activations are attempted

2022-05-03 Thread Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev
On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 8:49 PM Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Sun, May 1, 2022, 09:22 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> [...] Andreas is clueless about BIP 119 and other covenant >> proposals. He is spreading misinformation and [...] > Clueless and spreading disinformation, you

Re: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV

2022-05-03 Thread darosior via bitcoin-dev
Hi Jacob, I think you are a bit confused about how CTV and (tweaked) APO covenants compare. Both would commit to the same template, so one isn't "safer" than the other. Just more efficient in how it commits to the template. Replies on the specifics inline. > While I agree with the arguments in

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pay to signature hash as a covenant

2022-05-03 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
Good morning vjudeu, > Typical P2PK looks like that: " OP_CHECKSIG". In a > typical scenario, we have "" in out input and " > OP_CHECKSIG" in our output. I wonder if it is possible to use covenants right > here and right now, with no consensus changes, just by requiring a specific >

[bitcoin-dev] CoinPool should focus on different sighashes

2022-05-03 Thread vjudeu via bitcoin-dev
It seems that the current consensus with Taproot is enough to implement CoinPool. There are no needed changes if we want to form a basic version of that protocol, so it probably should be done now (or at least started, even in some signet or testnet3). Later, if some features like

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards Consensus

2022-05-03 Thread John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev
> > > The path to consensus is to propose things that everyone needs. > If there's an insight here, it isn't clear what it is to me. As stated, > this is something I can only 100% disagree with. Its possible that > literally nothing about bitcoin is something that "everyone needs". Its > pretty

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards Consensus

2022-05-03 Thread Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev
John, > The path to consensus is to propose things that everyone needs. If there's an insight here, it isn't clear what it is to me. As stated, this is something I can only 100% disagree with. Its possible that literally nothing about bitcoin is something that "everyone needs". Its pretty clear

[bitcoin-dev] Pay to signature hash as a covenant

2022-05-03 Thread vjudeu via bitcoin-dev
Typical P2PK looks like that: " OP_CHECKSIG". In a typical scenario, we have "" in out input and " OP_CHECKSIG" in our output. I wonder if it is possible to use covenants right here and right now, with no consensus changes, just by requiring a specific signature. To start with, I am trying to