> > > As a better analogy: I am borrowing a piece of gold, smelting it down to
> > > make
> > > a nice shiny advertisement "I am totally not a bot!!", then at the end of
> > > the
> > > lease period, re-smelting it back and returning to you the same gold piece
> > > (with the exact same atoms
Good morning e,
> Good evening ZmnSCPxj,
>
> Sorry for the long delay...
Thank you very much for responding.
>
> > Good morning e,
> >
> > > Good evening ZmnSCPxj,
> > >
> > > For the sake of simplicity, I'll use the terms lender (Landlord), borrower
> > > (Lessor), interest (X), principal
Good evening ZmnSCPxj,
Sorry for the long delay...
> 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
Good morning Chris,
> Yes linking the two identities (joinmarket maker and teleport maker)
> together slightly degrades privacy, but that has to be balanced against
> the privacy loss of leaving both systems open to sybil attacks. Without
> fidelity bonds the two systems can be sybil attacked
Hello ZmnSCPxj,
You say "A taker can be a surveillor as well", as though that's simple
and easy to achieve. In reality there are many defenses against that.
Defending against the attack of a malicious taker aborting at the last
step is the purpose of the podle commitments which joinmarket
Good morning Chris,
> Hello waxwing,
>
> > A user sacrifices X amount of time-value-of-money (henceforth TVOM)
>
> by committing in Joinmarket with FB1. He then uses the same FB1 in
> Teleport, let's say. If he gets benefit Y from using FB1 in Joinmarket,
> and benefit Z in Teleport, then
Hello waxwing,
> A user sacrifices X amount of time-value-of-money (henceforth TVOM)
by committing in Joinmarket with FB1. He then uses the same FB1 in
Teleport, let's say. If he gets benefit Y from using FB1 in Joinmarket,
and benefit Z in Teleport, then presumably he'll only do it if
> I suppose ultimately this brings up the question of the scope of this BIP.
> The abstract points out that the BIP contains both a definition of address
> derivation, but also how to sign fidelity bond certificates.
>
> My feeling is that the latter might be better not included? I note that the
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, May 10th, 2022 at 17:54, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Good morning waxwing,
>
> Ah, yes, now I remember.
> I discussed this with Tamas as well in the past and that is why we concluded
> that in defiads, each UTXO can host at most one
Good morning waxwing,
> --- Original Message ---
> On Sunday, May 1st, 2022 at 11:01, Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > Hello ZmnSCPxj,
> > This is an intended feature. I'm thinking that the same fidelity bond
> > can be used to running a
--- Original Message ---
On Sunday, May 1st, 2022 at 11:01, Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> 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
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
, 2022 7:37 PM
> To: Eric Voskuil
> Cc: Chris Belcher ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion d...@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond for
> BIP39 seeds
>
> Good morning e,
>
>
> > It looks like you are talk
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
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
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
Good morning Chris,
> Hello ZmnSCPxj,
>
> Renting out fidelity bonds is an interesting idea. It might happen in
> the situation where a hodler wants to generate yield but doesn't want
> the hassle of running a full node and yield generator. A big downside of
> it is that the yield generator
Hello ZmnSCPxj,
Renting out fidelity bonds is an interesting idea. It might happen in
the situation where a hodler wants to generate yield but doesn't want
the hassle of running a full node and yield generator. A big downside of
it is that the yield generator income is random while the rent
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
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_
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
