Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[DA Williamson via bitcoin-dev]

Good Morning,

The Bitcoin you are spending must exist in compliance with consensus
so, if the details are obscured then it is not possible for me to
accept your Bitcoin, to say I refuse. Otherwise, it is not possible for
me to see immutably that they exist all the way to coin genesis, they
could be invented in the obfuscation even in the example the received
Bitcoin are discarded as fees and new Bitcoin are invented. In that
case the transaction is not in balance but, without public scrutiny it
is not possible to see.

It is also necesdsary to see who should be able to spend the UTXO to
prevent fraud, so that scrutability allows consensus driven fungibility
to be proven. If the transaction is not available to scrutiny at least
at the level of P2SH where the spend reveals the pay to script with all
the other conditions of consensus then fungibilty does not exist.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.

 
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects
 
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
email if misdelivered.
On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 09:32 +, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> What property *needs* to be proven in the first place?

> Given the above, it is not *necessary* to prove *any* property of
*any* UTXO other than the property *this UTXO does not create more
coins than what was designed*.

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev]

Good afternoon,

That is not desirable since yourself and I cannot prove the property of the 
UTXO when it is further spent unless we can ourselves scrutinize it.

We have had this conversation before where you approach your reply to resolve 
that I have offered disagreement and I try to explain I am not disagreeing and 
yet there should be found some common ground. Can this improve?

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

From: ZmnSCPxj 
Sent: Wednesday, 17 March 2021 3:11 PM
To: DA Williamson 
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion ; LORD 
HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH 
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

Good morning JAMES,

> Good Afternoon,
>
> Verifiable and independantly verifiable are not the same. Independantly
> scrutinable means any public can scrutinise blockchain to determine it
> is honest. It does not rely on involved parties but insistently on the
> data published in the blockchain.

The involved parties ultimately publish the data on the blockchain, and the 
result is independently validatable.
All that each involved party has to do is validate for itself that it does not 
lose any funds, and, by the operation of math, the summary result does not 
result in any loss (or creation) of funds, thus CoinJoin cannot lead to fraud.

I do not see much of a point in your objection here.
For example, in the case of Lightning, the individual payments made by the 
participants in the channel cannot be verified by anyone else (they can lie 
about the payments that occurred on their channel).
But both participants in the channel need to agree on a single result, and it 
is that summary result that is independently verified onchain and published.

Indeed, one major technique for privacy improvement in Bitcoin is the simple 
technique of creating summaries of multiple actions without revealing details.
Such a general class of techniques works by reducing the data pushed onchain 
which provides both (a) scale because less data on chain and (b) privacy 
because less data is analyzable onchain.

Basically ---

1.  The entire point of a public blockchain is to prevent uncontrolled forgery 
of the coin.
Only particular rules allow construction of new coins (in Bitcoin, the 
mining subsidy).
2.  Various techniques can be used to support the above central point.
* The simplest is to openly publish every amount value in cleartext.
  * However, this is not necessarily the ***only*** acceptable way to 
achieve the goal!
  * Remember, the point is to prevent uncontrolled forgery.
The point is **not** mass surveillance.
* Another method would be to openly publish **summaries** of transactions, 
such as by Lightning Network summarizing the result of multiple payments.
  * CoinJoin is really just a way to summarize multiple self-payments.
* Another method would be to use homomorphisms between a cleartext and a 
ciphertext, and publish only the ciphertext (which can be independently 
verified as correctly being added together and that inputs equal outputs plus 
fees).

No privacy technique worth discussing and development in Bitcoin gets around 
the above point, and thus fraud cannot be achieved with those (at least if we 
define fraud simply as "those who control the keys control the coins" --- 
someone stealing a copy of your privkeys is beyond this definition of fraud).
Any privacy improvement Taproot buys (mostly in LN, but also some additional 
privacy for CoinSwap) will still not allow fraud.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev]

Good Afternoon,

If you actually believe the operation of consensus and the discussion relevant 
to that is a mundane or philosophical dissection of people's ability to grasp a 
humorous while on-topic but obligatorily unnecessary conversation you may 
prefer if you enquire how Bitcoin is censorship-resistant.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

From: ZmnSCPxj 
Sent: Wednesday, 17 March 2021 3:19 PM
To: Aymeric Vitte ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 

Cc: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; R E Broadley 
; Eric Voskuil 
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK


> It's incredible how this troll keeps trolling and the list (bitcoin-dev !!) 
> keeping attention
>
> Good troll, really

Depending on topic raised, it may be useful to at least answer the troll 
naively as if it were an honest question, if only so that third parties reading 
do not get confused and think the troll is bringing up some objection that is 
actually relevant.

For this particular topic you replied to, it seems to me obviously inane to 
discuss the "lordship" and "majesty" of the troll.
Even if the claims to such "lordship" are *true*, for most of the world, the 
relevance of the previous British empire is little more than a reality TV show 
about the British royal family (oh, some random thing happened to some random 
descendant of the royal family, how interesting, say did you see that nice new 
(actually old) technique Jeremy was talking about on the other thread about 
delegating control of coins to script, it looks like "graftroot without a 
softfork"?), and any particular claims to nobility or aristocracy are largely 
moot, thus not worth answering.


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev]

Good morning,

> Good afternoon,
>
> That is not desirable since yourself and I cannot prove the property of the 
> UTXO when it is further spent unless we can ourselves scrutinize it.

What property *needs* to be proven in the first place?

I suspect you are riding too much on your preferences and losing sight of the 
end goal I am pointing at here.
If your goal is to promote something you prefer (which you selected for other 
reasons) then the conclusion will be different.

I already laid out the necessary goal that I consider as necessary:

> The entire point of a public blockchain is to prevent uncontrolled forgery of 
> the coin.

Given the above, it is not *necessary* to prove *any* property of *any* UTXO 
other than the property *this UTXO does not create more coins than what was 
designed*.
The exact value of that coin, the public key of that coin, *when* the coin was 
spent and for *what* purpose are not *necessary*, the only thing necessary to 
prove is that inputs = outputs + fee.
Indeed, the exact values of "inputs" and "outputs" and "fee" are also not 
needed to be verifiable, only the simple fact "input = outputs + fee" needs to 
be verifiable (which is why homomorphic encryptions of input, output, and fee 
are acceptable solutions to this goal).
It is immaterial if you or I *can* or *cannot* prove any *other* property, if 
the goal is only to prevent uncontrolled forgery.

If your definition of "fraud" is broader, then please lay it out explicitly.
As well, take note that as I understand it, this is largely the primary problem 
of cryptocurrencies that existed long before Bitcoin did; it is helpful to 
remember that Chaumian banks and various forms of e-cash existed before Bitcoin.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev]

> If you actually believe the operation of consensus and the discussion 
> relevant to that is a mundane or philosophical dissection of people's ability 
> to grasp a humorous while on-topic but obligatorily unnecessary conversation 
> you may prefer if you enquire how Bitcoin is censorship-resistant.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Censorship-Resistance-Property___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev]

> It's incredible how this troll keeps trolling and the list (bitcoin-dev !!) 
> keeping attention
>
> Good troll, really

Depending on topic raised, it may be useful to at least answer the troll 
naively as if it were an honest question, if only so that third parties reading 
do not get confused and think the troll is bringing up some objection that is 
actually relevant.

For this particular topic you replied to, it seems to me obviously inane to 
discuss the "lordship" and "majesty" of the troll.
Even if the claims to such "lordship" are *true*, for most of the world, the 
relevance of the previous British empire is little more than a reality TV show 
about the British royal family (oh, some random thing happened to some random 
descendant of the royal family, how interesting, say did you see that nice new 
(actually old) technique Jeremy was talking about on the other thread about 
delegating control of coins to script, it looks like "graftroot without a 
softfork"?), and any particular claims to nobility or aristocracy are largely 
moot, thus not worth answering.


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev]

Good morning JAMES,

> Good Afternoon,
>
> Verifiable and independantly verifiable are not the same. Independantly
> scrutinable means any public can scrutinise blockchain to determine it
> is honest. It does not rely on involved parties but insistently on the
> data published in the blockchain.

The involved parties ultimately publish the data on the blockchain, and the 
result is independently validatable.
All that each involved party has to do is validate for itself that it does not 
lose any funds, and, by the operation of math, the summary result does not 
result in any loss (or creation) of funds, thus CoinJoin cannot lead to fraud.

I do not see much of a point in your objection here.
For example, in the case of Lightning, the individual payments made by the 
participants in the channel cannot be verified by anyone else (they can lie 
about the payments that occurred on their channel).
But both participants in the channel need to agree on a single result, and it 
is that summary result that is independently verified onchain and published.

Indeed, one major technique for privacy improvement in Bitcoin is the simple 
technique of creating summaries of multiple actions without revealing details.
Such a general class of techniques works by reducing the data pushed onchain 
which provides both (a) scale because less data on chain and (b) privacy 
because less data is analyzable onchain.

Basically ---

1.  The entire point of a public blockchain is to prevent uncontrolled forgery 
of the coin.
Only particular rules allow construction of new coins (in Bitcoin, the 
mining subsidy).
2.  Various techniques can be used to support the above central point.
* The simplest is to openly publish every amount value in cleartext.
  * However, this is not necessarily the ***only*** acceptable way to 
achieve the goal!
  * Remember, the point is to prevent uncontrolled forgery.
The point is **not** mass surveillance.
* Another method would be to openly publish **summaries** of transactions, 
such as by Lightning Network summarizing the result of multiple payments.
  * CoinJoin is really just a way to summarize multiple self-payments.
* Another method would be to use homomorphisms between a cleartext and a 
ciphertext, and publish only the ciphertext (which can be independently 
verified as correctly being added together and that inputs equal outputs plus 
fees).

No privacy technique worth discussing and development in Bitcoin gets around 
the above point, and thus fraud cannot be achieved with those (at least if we 
define fraud simply as "those who control the keys control the coins" --- 
someone stealing a copy of your privkeys is beyond this definition of fraud).
Any privacy improvement Taproot buys (mostly in LN, but also some additional 
privacy for CoinSwap) will still not allow fraud.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[DA Williamson via bitcoin-dev]

Good Afternoon,

Verifiable and independantly verifiable are not the same. Independantly
scrutinable means any public can scrutinise blockchain to determine it
is honest. It does not rely on involved parties but insistently on the
data published in the blockchain. The accepted case of P2SH is also a
moot point since we are checking transactions and not where the balance
is but where it has come from. It is not further to P2SH which is not
obfuscation but is indeed publishing to then say that we only need
publicly disclose G3 which is a tangent obfuscation.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES
HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A.
James Williamson
Wills

et al.

 
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com

and other projects
 
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m.
0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general
advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 02:11 +, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Good morning JAMES,
> 
> > No-one has yet demonstrated that Conjoin or using Wasabi wallet is
> > secure if it relies on third-parties. Are the transaction not
> > forwarded partially signed as with an SPV wallet? So it is possible
> > the SPV server cannot redirect funds if dishonest? SPV wallets are
> > secure producing fully signed transactions. A ConJoin transaction
> > signs for the UTXO and forwards it to be included signed for in
> > another larger transaction with many inputs and outputs
> 
> The above point was not answered, so let me answer this for
> elucidation of you and any readers.
> 
> A CoinJoin transaction is a single transaction with many inputs and
> many outputs.
> 
> Every input must be signed.
> 
> When used to obfuscate, each input has different actual entities
> owning the coin.
> 
> In order to prevent fraud, it is necessary that what total amount
> each entity puts into the transaction, that entity also gets out (in
> freshly-generated addresses, which I hope you do not object to) as an
> output.
> 
> When providing its signature, each entity verifies that its provided
> address exists in some output first before signing out its input.
> 
> The provided signature requires all the inputs and all the outputs to
> exist in the transaction.
> Because of this, it is not possible to take a "partial" signature for
> this transaction, then change the transaction to redirect outputs
> elsewhere --- the signature of previous participants become invalid
> for the modified transaction..
> 
> Thus, the security of the CoinJoin cannot be damaged by a third
> party.
> 
> Third parties involved in popular implementations of CoinJoin (such
> as the coordinator in Wasabi) are nothing more than clerical
> actuaries that take signatures of an immutable document, and any
> attempt by that clerical actuary to change the document also destroys
> any signatures of that document, making the modified document (the
> transaction) invalid.
> 
> > . Also, none of those you mention is inherently a Privacy
> > Technology. Transparency is one of the key articles of value in
> > Bitcoin because it prevents fraud.
> 
> The prevention of fraud simply requires that all addition is
> validatable.
> It does not require that the actual values involved are visible in
> cleartext.
> 
> Various cryptographic techniques already exist which allow the
> verifiable addition of encrypted values ("homomorphisms").
> You can get 1 * G and 2 * G, add the resulting points, and compare it
> to 3 * G and see that you get the same point, yet if you did not know
> exactly what G was used, you would not know that you were checking
> the addition of 1 + 2 = 3.
> That is the basis of a large number of privacy coins.
> 
> At the same time, if I wanted to *voluntarily* reveal this 1 + 2 = 3,
> I could reveal the numbers involved and the point G I used, and any
> validator (including, say, a government taxing authority) can check
> that the points recorded on the blockchain match with what I claimed.
> 
> For the prevention of fraud, we should strive to be as transparent as
> *little* as possible, while allowing users to *voluntarily* reveal
> information.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev]

It's incredible how this troll keeps trolling and the list (bitcoin-dev
!!) keeping attention


Good troll, really


Le 14/03/2021 à 11:13, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev a
écrit :
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Since this is on the list I will open without my thank-you. You will
> kindly be advised that my title are recorded in both Scotland and with
> England, also provided by record in Australia's account with names
> recorded. If you wonder than am I Wills it is because a long time
> before we ever saw Wills in print with an article provided reference to
> any Prince in the past thirty-years there I am Wills already. Title The
> Australian was prepared a long time to my requiest to wait until it was
> better presented, with at least some acquired experience in business to
> understand a market like BHP services. Thereby you accept a separate
> title Lord being with feudal and Lord being with the appointments
> direct to the service of the monarch's house Earl and similar up to
> Duke and King and higher being heard usually the monarch's preference
> Your Excellency or Your Highness being His service. I have never been
> any Prince. If any Prince titles came the instructions were they were
> retained to be considered not accepted not refused.
>
> If you had each fools to inquire.
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
>
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>  
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>  
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
> 
> *From:* bitcoin-dev  on
> behalf of Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
> 
> *Sent:* Saturday, 13 March 2021 9:30 AM
> *To:* R E Broadley ; Bitcoin
> Protocol Discussion 
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>  
> I’m pretty sure it’s subtle mockery. Even a legit title doesn’t
> warrant additional attention.
>
> e
>
> > On Mar 12, 2021, at 14:02, R E Broadley via bitcoin-dev
>  wrote:
> >
> > Can I just point out (to those addressing James as Lord/Excelency/etc
> > that he isn't noble nor a Lord, so just wanted to mention this in case
> > people were giving him more attention than the average person would be
> > afforded.
> >
> > My 2p (an equal 2p) on Taproot is ACK, by the way.
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

-- 
Sophia-Antipolis, France
LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/aymeric-vitte-05855b26
Move your coins by yourself (browser version): https://peersm.com/wallet
Bitcoin transactions made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-transactions
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev]

Good morning JAMES,

> No-one has yet demonstrated that Conjoin or using Wasabi wallet is secure if 
> it relies on third-parties. Are the transaction not forwarded partially 
> signed as with an SPV wallet? So it is possible the SPV server cannot 
> redirect funds if dishonest? SPV wallets are secure producing fully signed 
> transactions. A ConJoin transaction signs for the UTXO and forwards it to be 
> included signed for in another larger transaction with many inputs and outputs

The above point was not answered, so let me answer this for elucidation of you 
and any readers.

A CoinJoin transaction is a single transaction with many inputs and many 
outputs.

Every input must be signed.

When used to obfuscate, each input has different actual entities owning the 
coin.

In order to prevent fraud, it is necessary that what total amount each entity 
puts into the transaction, that entity also gets out (in freshly-generated 
addresses, which I hope you do not object to) as an output.

When providing its signature, each entity verifies that its provided address 
exists in some output first before signing out its input.

The provided signature requires all the inputs and all the outputs to exist in 
the transaction.
Because of this, it is not possible to take a "partial" signature for this 
transaction, then change the transaction to redirect outputs elsewhere --- the 
signature of previous participants become invalid for the modified transaction..

Thus, the security of the CoinJoin cannot be damaged by a third party.

Third parties involved in popular implementations of CoinJoin (such as the 
coordinator in Wasabi) are nothing more than clerical actuaries that take 
signatures of an immutable document, and any attempt by that clerical actuary 
to change the document also destroys any signatures of that document, making 
the modified document (the transaction) invalid.

> . Also, none of those you mention is inherently a Privacy Technology. 
> Transparency is one of the key articles of value in Bitcoin because it 
> prevents fraud.

The prevention of fraud simply requires that all addition is validatable.
It does not require that the actual values involved are visible in cleartext.

Various cryptographic techniques already exist which allow the verifiable 
addition of encrypted values ("homomorphisms").
You can get 1 * G and 2 * G, add the resulting points, and compare it to 3 * G 
and see that you get the same point, yet if you did not know exactly what G was 
used, you would not know that you were checking the addition of 1 + 2 = 3.
That is the basis of a large number of privacy coins.

At the same time, if I wanted to *voluntarily* reveal this 1 + 2 = 3, I could 
reveal the numbers involved and the point G I used, and any validator 
(including, say, a government taxing authority) can check that the points 
recorded on the blockchain match with what I claimed.

For the prevention of fraud, we should strive to be as transparent as *little* 
as possible, while allowing users to *voluntarily* reveal information.


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev]

Good Afternoon,

Since this is on the list I will open without my thank-you. You will
kindly be advised that my title are recorded in both Scotland and with
England, also provided by record in Australia's account with names
recorded. If you wonder than am I Wills it is because a long time
before we ever saw Wills in print with an article provided reference to
any Prince in the past thirty-years there I am Wills already. Title The
Australian was prepared a long time to my requiest to wait until it was
better presented, with at least some acquired experience in business to
understand a market like BHP services. Thereby you accept a separate
title Lord being with feudal and Lord being with the appointments
direct to the service of the monarch's house Earl and similar up to
Duke and King and higher being heard usually the monarch's preference
Your Excellency or Your Highness being His service. I have never been
any Prince. If any Prince titles came the instructions were they were
retained to be considered not accepted not refused.

If you had each fools to inquire.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
email if misdelivered.

From: bitcoin-dev  on behalf of 
Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev 
Sent: Saturday, 13 March 2021 9:30 AM
To: R E Broadley ; Bitcoin Protocol 
Discussion 
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

I’m pretty sure it’s subtle mockery. Even a legit title doesn’t warrant 
additional attention.

e

> On Mar 12, 2021, at 14:02, R E Broadley via bitcoin-dev 
>  wrote:
>
> Can I just point out (to those addressing James as Lord/Excelency/etc
> that he isn't noble nor a Lord, so just wanted to mention this in case
> people were giving him more attention than the average person would be
> afforded.
>
> My 2p (an equal 2p) on Taproot is ACK, by the way.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev]

I’m pretty sure it’s subtle mockery. Even a legit title doesn’t warrant 
additional attention.

e

> On Mar 12, 2021, at 14:02, R E Broadley via bitcoin-dev 
>  wrote:
> 
> Can I just point out (to those addressing James as Lord/Excelency/etc
> that he isn't noble nor a Lord, so just wanted to mention this in case
> people were giving him more attention than the average person would be
> afforded.
> 
> My 2p (an equal 2p) on Taproot is ACK, by the way.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[R E Broadley via bitcoin-dev]

Can I just point out (to those addressing James as Lord/Excelency/etc
that he isn't noble nor a Lord, so just wanted to mention this in case
people were giving him more attention than the average person would be
afforded.

My 2p (an equal 2p) on Taproot is ACK, by the way.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 00:49, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev
 wrote:
>
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY,
>
> This isn't different with Taproot either. When you spend a P2SH output you 
> reveal the script. In Taproot you reveal the portion of the script that is 
> relevant to allowing you to spend it. There is no value to specifying the 
> other possible conditions that could have moved the coins because, after all, 
> you aren't invoking those clauses to move the coins. I am showing you my 
> fingertip, and pointing to my finger tip, the palm is not relevant.
>
> Keagan
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:11 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via 
> bitcoin-dev  wrote:
>>
>> Good Afternoon,
>>
>> You cannot liken the ability to scrutinise the public ledger to be the same 
>> as hiding information, it is like showing your palm while you are pointing 
>> at the back of your hand. The advice that I have is P2SH is scrutable once 
>> the UTXO is spent. Also, there is no public ledger obfuscation in creating 
>> new addresses, there is a plausible reduction in transaction linkage.
>>
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire
>>
>> Regards,
>> The Australian
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>>
>> et al.
>>
>>
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au
>> www.go-overt.com
>> and other projects
>>
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email 
>> if misdelivered.
>> 
>> From: bitcoin-dev  on behalf 
>> of Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev 
>> Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 1:04 AM
>> To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
>> bitcoin-dev  wrote:
>> > My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the Pay 
>> > To address
>>
>> This is no different from options available in P2SH, or from the
>> obfuscation achieved by generating a new address for a payment.
>> ___
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> ___
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev]

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY,

This isn't different with Taproot either. When you spend a P2SH output you
reveal the script. In Taproot you reveal the portion of the script that is
relevant to allowing you to spend it. There is no value to specifying the
other possible conditions that could have moved the coins because, after
all, you aren't invoking those clauses to move the coins. I am showing you
my fingertip, and pointing to my finger tip, the palm is not relevant.

Keagan

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:11 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev  wrote:

> Good Afternoon,
>
> You cannot liken the ability to scrutinise the public ledger to be the
> same as hiding information, it is like showing your palm while you are
> pointing at the back of your hand. The advice that I have is P2SH is
> scrutable once the UTXO is spent. Also, there is no public ledger
> obfuscation in creating new addresses, there is a plausible reduction in
> transaction linkage.
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
>
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
> --
> *From:* bitcoin-dev  on
> behalf of Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 6 March 2021 1:04 AM
> *To:* Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
> bitcoin-dev  wrote:
> > My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the
> Pay To address
>
> This is no different from options available in P2SH, or from the
> obfuscation achieved by generating a new address for a payment.
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev]

Good Afternoon,

You cannot liken the ability to scrutinise the public ledger to be the same as 
hiding information, it is like showing your palm while you are pointing at the 
back of your hand. The advice that I have is P2SH is scrutable once the UTXO is 
spent. Also, there is no public ledger obfuscation in creating new addresses, 
there is a plausible reduction in transaction linkage.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

From: bitcoin-dev  on behalf of 
Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev 
Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 1:04 AM
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev  wrote:
> My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the Pay To 
> address

This is no different from options available in P2SH, or from the
obfuscation achieved by generating a new address for a payment.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev]

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev  wrote:
> My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the Pay To 
> address

This is no different from options available in P2SH, or from the
obfuscation achieved by generating a new address for a payment.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev]

Good Afternoon,

I will reply this to the list. Knit picking is not constructive. The basic 
principle of Bitcoin it all transactions are published to the public ledger, 
the blockchain. What is valuable is the system that consensus enshrines as we 
have it, not what it may become tomorrow. If ther eis not consensus then there 
is no Bitcoin, there is a scattering of alt-coins one of which may retain the 
Bitcoin name and BTC lookup but without consensus it is not what is valued by 
the current consensus. Consensus is exactly why Bitcoin is pushing AU$70K again 
last night because we agree it has value, and BCH is less than AU$700 - that is 
why it is important to defend consensus, those who disagree are free to do what 
they want, mostly, elsewhere. We have agreed Bitcoin has certain properties 
including being immutable, transparent, publicly published. Consensus provides 
we make software to operate in accordance with consensus. If we do not value 
Bitcoin to defend consensus, instead preferring to have the product exhibit our 
own mistrust or flaws, then go play with BCH and make it like DOGE, they will 
klike you at DOGE.

Eric, you are intelligent, obviously, but you mistake from you other email the 
tenet of honset for the actual case of honesty. The ledger is not ascertained 
to be honest until it can be proven when it is checked, the very reason for 
publishing to the public blockchain without obfuscation, and one of the actual 
reasons Bitcoin has inherent value. The value is agreed in an exchange, yet 
without the properties of the consensus that value is lost.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

From: e...@voskuil.org 
Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2021 10:55 PM
To: 'LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH' ; 'Bitcoin Protocol 
Discussion' 
Cc: 'Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces' 
Subject: RE: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK


> and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government.



From what do you derive the moral judgement “should” in this context?



> The value proposition is … because people will trust the system?



So, it’s valuable because it’s trusted? Trusted to do what exactly? What that 
government money doesn’t already do, specifically.



> If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?



Nothing is “necessary”. Consensus is an agreement among people. It’s voluntary. 
Any person can choose to leave, create or join another consensus, or stay where 
they are.



> BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.



Exactly, people are free to do what they want. Nobody “should” do anything 
except that which they want to do. This and this alone is the “highest value” 
if one accepts the moral principle of non-aggression. You do not appear to, and 
I’m afraid that may be well outside the consensus view among core bitcoin 
developers (the people you are talking to).



e



From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH 
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 6:55 PM
To: Eric Voskuil ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 

Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces 
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK



Good Afternoon,



All people are entitled to privacy in their purse, and all transactions should 
be open to the scrutiny of an honest government. You can debate whether any 
government is honest. Mixing does not remove the record from the public ledger, 
where it is possible to see that any Bitcoin has transferred from an UTXO to 
some Pay-To address even with some amount of transaction in between them. The 
value proposition is the same https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs - 
because people will trust the system; people trust the existing consensus.



Let us dispense with the screen and deal with the issue only. If it is not 
necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?



The intrinsic value of Bitcoin is because of the existing consensus. Even if 
any proposal gains consensus there is no objective way to show it improves the 
intrinsic value without trialing and the possibility of failure and so 
protecting the existing consensus should be the highest value. This 
understanding is the reason BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.



KING JAMES HRMH

Great British Empire



Regards,

The Australian

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)

of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire

MR. Damian A. James Williamson

Wills



et al.





Willtech

www.willtech.com.au

www.go-overt.com

and other projects



earn.com/willtech

linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson





m. 0487135719

f. +61261470192





This email does not constitut

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev]

Good Afternoon,

Gold is not all off the record if you suppose, it is all the King's property if 
His Excellency likes. If you suppose for underground gold perhaps fork Bitcoin 
and make Encryptitcoin and notice governments are hostile to hidden money. 
Bitcoin also has value because it is transparent and therefore fraud-proof if 
we must only accept honest blocks.

If you want dragnet surveillance, I have already lodged my taxes up to date.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

From: Thomas Hartman 
Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2021 1:32 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin Protocol 
Discussion 
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

“all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government”

I agree with this. However, scrutiny does not imply dragnet surveillance.

Bitcoin returns us, or at least aspires to return, to the days of a gold 
standard.[0] You will be familiar with this, from your time in Her Majesty’s 
empire.

In these days, scrutiny implied detectives asking questions. Perhaps they would 
ask questions of multiple parties and see if certain numbers matched. There was 
no dragnet surveillance, and this as god intended.

We return to these days soon.

I agree with your point about consensus as well. You are free to run a node 
supporting a dragnet surveillance fork, and sell your coins that support 
gold-like privacy to accumulate more dragnet surveillance coins. I wish you 
success with that.

[0]: https://taaalk.co/t/bitcoin-maxima-other-crypto-things


On Mar 2, 2021, at 9:54 PM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
 wrote:

Good Afternoon,

All people are entitled to privacy in their purse, and all transactions should 
be open to the scrutiny of an honest government. You can debate whether any 
government is honest. Mixing does not remove the record from the public ledger, 
where it is possible to see that any Bitcoin has transferred from an UTXO to 
some Pay-To address even with some amount of transaction in between them. The 
value proposition is the samehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs - 
because people will trust the system; people trust the existing consensus.

Let us dispense with the screen and deal with the issue only. If it is not 
necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?

The intrinsic value of Bitcoin is because of the existing consensus. Even if 
any proposal gains consensus there is no objective way to show it improves the 
intrinsic value without trialing and the possibility of failure and so 
protecting the existing consensus should be the highest value. This 
understanding is the reason BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech<http://earn.com/willtech>
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson<http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

From: Eric Voskuil mailto:e...@voskuil.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH 
mailto:willt...@live.com.au>>; Bitcoin Protocol 
Discussion 
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces mailto:ariellua...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases 
privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against 
any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?

And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should 
have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient 
privacy?

Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value 
proposition of Bitcoin?

e

On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
 wrote:


Good Afternoon,

I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a 
courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation 
with Jambler.io<http://Jambler.io> it seems sufficient to disclose my 
affiliation through the link in my email signature 

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Thomas Hartman via bitcoin-dev]

“all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government”

I agree with this. However, scrutiny does not imply dragnet surveillance.

Bitcoin returns us, or at least aspires to return, to the days of a gold 
standard.[0] You will be familiar with this, from your time in Her Majesty’s 
empire.

In these days, scrutiny implied detectives asking questions. Perhaps they would 
ask questions of multiple parties and see if certain numbers matched. There was 
no dragnet surveillance, and this as god intended.

We return to these days soon.

I agree with your point about consensus as well. You are free to run a node 
supporting a dragnet surveillance fork, and sell your coins that support 
gold-like privacy to accumulate more dragnet surveillance coins. I wish you 
success with that. 

[0]: https://taaalk.co/t/bitcoin-maxima-other-crypto-things


> On Mar 2, 2021, at 9:54 PM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
>  wrote:
> 
> Good Afternoon,
> 
> All people are entitled to privacy in their purse, and all transactions 
> should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government. You can debate 
> whether any government is honest. Mixing does not remove the record from the 
> public ledger, where it is possible to see that any Bitcoin has transferred 
> from an UTXO to some Pay-To address even with some amount of transaction in 
> between them. The value proposition is the 
> samehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs> - because people will trust the 
> system; people trust the existing consensus.
> 
> Let us dispense with the screen and deal with the issue only. If it is not 
> necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?
> 
> The intrinsic value of Bitcoin is because of the existing consensus. Even if 
> any proposal gains consensus there is no objective way to show it improves 
> the intrinsic value without trialing and the possibility of failure and so 
> protecting the existing consensus should be the highest value. This 
> understanding is the reason BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.
> 
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
> 
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
> 
> et al.
> 
>  
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au 
> www.go-overt.com 
> and other projects
>  
> earn.com/willtech <http://earn.com/willtech>
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson <http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>
> 
> 
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
> 
> 
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email 
> if misdelivered.
> From: Eric Voskuil 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin Protocol 
> Discussion 
> Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces 
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>  
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases 
> privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument 
> against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)? 
> 
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should 
> have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient 
> privacy?
> 
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value 
> proposition of Bitcoin?
> 
> e
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Good Afternoon,
>> 
>> I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a 
>> courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my 
>> affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation 
>> through the link in my email signature block.
>> 
>> My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and 
>> the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in 
>> an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any 
>> obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable 
>> for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the 
>> existing consensus.
>> 
>> The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you 
>> may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around 
>> looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to 
>> see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for 
>> an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are 
>&g

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev]

Good Afternoon,

So this I have been advised as you say.

My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the Pay To 
address thereby removing the probity that Bitcoin can only be honest since the 
public ledger can be subject to limitless scrutiny. I did see another party 
mention this publicly on a social media channel and the back is supposed to be 
conditional both in the application and in lifting.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

From: Erik Aronesty 
Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2021 1:49 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin Protocol 
Discussion 
Cc: Daniel Edgecumbe 
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

taproot does not enable anything that cannot already be done today.

it only enables larger and more complex scripts to be done more
efficiently - using less ledger space.

so any objections you can have should be leveled at bitcoin, not at taproot.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 6:39 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev  wrote:
>
> "Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. 
> Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it 
> is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction 
> has occured."
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Requiring little argument I concur, privacy allows that you do not have 
> snoops and researchers following you around looking in your purse as you 
> transact. For the general public, how much you carry in your purse and where 
> you get it from is none of their business. However, your employer is required 
> to report to the government a record of pay, or at least maintain that 
> record, and the store where you made a purchase similarly to keep records so 
> that taxes can be paid. From their perspective, you do not need to know how 
> much they keep in their drawer. Bitcoin directly allows your purse to be 
> private and for the transaction ledger to take the scrutiny anyone should be 
> able to apply to prove the ledger is honest. Maintaining an argument that 
> consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
>
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
> www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
> and other projects
>
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email 
> if misdelivered.
> ____________
> From: bitcoin-dev  on behalf 
> of Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
> To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev 
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
> Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a participant 
> to determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of as a bug.
>
> Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. 
> Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it 
> is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction 
> has occured.
>
> Bitcoin is digital cash.
>
> Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
> em...@esotericnonsense.com | https://esotericnonsense.com
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency”
> > (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously
> > an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
> >
> > And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person
> > should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are
> > sufficient privacy?
> >
> > Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the
> > value proposition of Bitcoin?
> >
> > e
> >
> > > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Good Afternoon,
> > >
> 

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev]

taproot does not enable anything that cannot already be done today.

it only enables larger and more complex scripts to be done more
efficiently - using less ledger space.

so any objections you can have should be leveled at bitcoin, not at taproot.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 6:39 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev  wrote:
>
> "Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. 
> Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it 
> is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction 
> has occured."
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Requiring little argument I concur, privacy allows that you do not have 
> snoops and researchers following you around looking in your purse as you 
> transact. For the general public, how much you carry in your purse and where 
> you get it from is none of their business. However, your employer is required 
> to report to the government a record of pay, or at least maintain that 
> record, and the store where you made a purchase similarly to keep records so 
> that taxes can be paid. From their perspective, you do not need to know how 
> much they keep in their drawer. Bitcoin directly allows your purse to be 
> private and for the transaction ledger to take the scrutiny anyone should be 
> able to apply to prove the ledger is honest. Maintaining an argument that 
> consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
>
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email 
> if misdelivered.
> ____________
> From: bitcoin-dev  on behalf 
> of Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
> To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev 
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
> Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a participant 
> to determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of as a bug.
>
> Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. 
> Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it 
> is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction 
> has occured.
>
> Bitcoin is digital cash.
>
> Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
> em...@esotericnonsense.com | https://esotericnonsense.com
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency”
> > (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously
> > an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
> >
> > And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person
> > should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are
> > sufficient privacy?
> >
> > Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the
> > value proposition of Bitcoin?
> >
> > e
> >
> > > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Good Afternoon,
> > >
> > > I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate 
> > > a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my 
> > > affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my 
> > > affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
> > >
> > > My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values 
> > > and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are 
> > > published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of 
> > > information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of 
> > > a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially 
> > > without disturbing the existing consensus.
> > >
> > > The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As 
> > > you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around 
> > > looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to 
> > > see where and how much you fill it up, and where you

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev]

Your Excellency,

You don’t seem to understand how Bitcoin currently works. A signature is a 
mathematical /probabilistical proof that the person who signed (the output) is 
the same person who created the script (the input) that was paid to (i.e. not 
fraud). You cannot see that he is that person, you can only do the math - 
giving yourself a reasonable assurance that it is not a fraud.

Taproot is not a proposed change to this design, so I’m not sure to what 
exactly you are objecting. The math continues to be the sole assurance and 
visibility that the money was created and transferred in accordance with the 
agreed rules (consensus). There is no other way for anyone to “look at” 
potential fraud on the chain.

If you are aware of any flaw in the existing or proposed mathematics that would 
enable fraudulent creation or transfer of bitcoin, please spell it out for us.

e

> On Mar 3, 2021, at 21:10, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH 
>  wrote:
> 
> Good Afternoon,
> 
> I will reply privately here, what do you say I am not in support of 
> fungibility? This fungibility is because of consensus including transparency. 
> Otherwise, if it is just a fraud no-one can look at it.
> 
> KING JAMES HRMH
> 
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
> 
> et al.
> 
>  
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>  
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> 
> 
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
> 
> 
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email 
> if misdelivered.
> From: bitcoin-dev  on behalf 
> of Felipe Micaroni Lalli via bitcoin-dev 
> 
> Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2021 3:30 AM
> To: e...@voskuil.org ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 
> 
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>  
> Dear LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH), a.k.a. "The Australian",
> 
> This discussion list is serious stuff, please stop making noise. Fungibility 
> is a desirable property, anyway.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:04 PM Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev 
>>  wrote:
> > consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.
> 
> Actually, that’s exactly what it does. A logical/mathematical requirement 
> (necessity) is also called a proof.
> 
> e
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Felipe Micaroni Lalli via bitcoin-dev]

Dear LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH), a.k.a. "The Australian",

This discussion list is serious stuff, please stop making noise.
Fungibility is a desirable property, anyway.

Thank you!

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:04 PM Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is
> honest.
>
>
>
> Actually, that’s exactly what it does. A logical/mathematical requirement
> (necessity) is also called a proof.
>
>
>
> e
>
>
>
> *From:* bitcoin-dev  *On
> Behalf Of *LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:06 PM
> *To:* M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev ;
> Daniel Edgecumbe 
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
>
>
> "Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash.
> Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information,
> it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this
> transaction has occured."
>
>
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
>
>
> Requiring little argument I concur, privacy allows that you do not have
> snoops and researchers following you around looking in your purse as you
> transact. For the general public, how much you carry in your purse and
> where you get it from is none of their business. However, your employer is
> required to report to the government a record of pay, or at least maintain
> that record, and the store where you made a purchase similarly to keep
> records so that taxes can be paid. From their perspective, you do not need
> to know how much they keep in their drawer. Bitcoin directly allows your
> purse to be private and for the transaction ledger to take the scrutiny
> anyone should be able to apply to prove the ledger is honest. Maintaining
> an argument that consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove
> that it is honest.
>
>
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
>
> Great British Empire
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> The Australian
>
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>
> Wills
>
>
>
> et al.
>
>
>
>
>
> Willtech
>
> www.willtech.com.au
>
> www.go-overt.com
>
> and other projects
>
>
>
> earn.com/willtech
>
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
>
>
>
> m. 0487135719
>
> f. +61261470192
>
>
>
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
> --
>
> *From:* bitcoin-dev  on
> behalf of Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
> *To:* M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev 
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
>
>
> Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a
> participant to determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of
> as a bug.
>
> Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash.
> Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information,
> it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this
> transaction has occured.
>
> Bitcoin is digital cash.
>
> Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
> em...@esotericnonsense.com | https://esotericnonsense.com
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency”
> > (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously
> > an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
> >
> > And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person
> > should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are
> > sufficient privacy?
> >
> > Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the
> > value proposition of Bitcoin?
> >
> > e
> >
> > > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
> bitcoin-dev  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Good Afternoon,
> > >
> > > I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do
> appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure
> of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my
> affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
> > >
> > > My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values
> and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev]

> consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.

 

Actually, that’s exactly what it does. A logical/mathematical requirement 
(necessity) is also called a proof.

 

e

 

From: bitcoin-dev  On Behalf Of 
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:06 PM
To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev ; Daniel 
Edgecumbe 
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

 

"Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides 
the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is 
absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has 
occured."

 

Good Afternoon,

 

Requiring little argument I concur, privacy allows that you do not have snoops 
and researchers following you around looking in your purse as you transact. For 
the general public, how much you carry in your purse and where you get it from 
is none of their business. However, your employer is required to report to the 
government a record of pay, or at least maintain that record, and the store 
where you made a purchase similarly to keep records so that taxes can be paid. 
From their perspective, you do not need to know how much they keep in their 
drawer. Bitcoin directly allows your purse to be private and for the 
transaction ledger to take the scrutiny anyone should be able to apply to prove 
the ledger is honest. Maintaining an argument that consensus requires the 
ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.

 

KING JAMES HRMH

Great British Empire

 

Regards,

The Australian

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)

of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire

MR. Damian A. James Williamson

Wills

 

et al.

 

 

Willtech

www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au> 

www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com> 

and other projects

 

earn.com/willtech

linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson

 

 

m. 0487135719

f. +61261470192

 

 

This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

  _  

From: bitcoin-dev  on behalf of 
Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK 

 

Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a participant to 
determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of as a bug.

Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides 
the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is 
absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has 
occured.

Bitcoin is digital cash.

Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
em...@esotericnonsense.com <mailto:em...@esotericnonsense.com>  | 
https://esotericnonsense.com

On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” 
> (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously 
> an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)? 
> 
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person 
> should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are 
> sufficient privacy?
> 
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the 
> value proposition of Bitcoin?
> 
> e
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
> >  > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > wrote:
> > 
> >  
> > Good Afternoon,
> > 
> > I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a 
> > courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my 
> > affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation 
> > through the link in my email signature block.
> > 
> > My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and 
> > the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published 
> > in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any 
> > obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable 
> > for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the 
> > existing consensus.
> > 
> > The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you 
> > may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around 
> > looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to 
> > see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, 
> > for an honest person, their wallet is available for gover

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev]

Good Afternoon,

No-one has yet demonstrated that Conjoin or using Wasabi wallet is secure if it 
relies on third-parties. Are the transaction not forwarded partially signed as 
with an SPV wallet? So it is possible the SPV server cannot redirect funds if 
dishonest? SPV wallets are secure producing fully signed transactions. A 
ConJoin transaction signs for the UTXO and forwards it to be included signed 
for in another larger transaction with many inputs and outputs. Also, none of 
those you mention is inherently a Privacy Technology. Transparency is one of 
the key articles of value in Bitcoin because it prevents fraud.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

From: bitcoin-dev  on behalf of 
Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev 
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 10:56 PM
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 

Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

The idea of a fully-transparent bitcoin is dead and has been for many
years. This is because of various privacy tech such as CoinJoin,
Lightning Network, PayJoin, change avoidance, avoiding address reuse,
etc, along with a few new ones like CoinSwap and WabiSabi hopefully
coming soon.

On 01/03/2021 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases 
> privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument 
> against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
>
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should 
> have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient 
> privacy?
>
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value 
> proposition of Bitcoin?
>
> e
>
>> On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Good Afternoon,
>>
>> I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a 
>> courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my 
>> affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation 
>> through the link in my email signature block.
>>
>> My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and 
>> the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in 
>> an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any 
>> obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable 
>> for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the 
>> existing consensus.
>>
>> The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you 
>> may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around 
>> looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to 
>> see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for 
>> an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are 
>> their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of 
>> consensus.
>>
>> My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation 
>> with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information 
>> that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making 
>> use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn 
>> just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure 
>> of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io 
>> wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part 
>> of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by 
>> Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
>> 
>>
>> [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
>> https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png=622=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
>> from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
>>
>>
>> The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my 
>> referral website is also publicly published,
>> https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
>>
>> The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however 
>> and is made prominently on my referral

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev]

Good Afternoon,

All people are entitled to privacy in their purse, and all transactions should 
be open to the scrutiny of an honest government. You can debate whether any 
government is honest. Mixing does not remove the record from the public ledger, 
where it is possible to see that any Bitcoin has transferred from an UTXO to 
some Pay-To address even with some amount of transaction in between them. The 
value proposition is the same https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs - 
because people will trust the system; people trust the existing consensus.

Let us dispense with the screen and deal with the issue only. If it is not 
necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?

The intrinsic value of Bitcoin is because of the existing consensus. Even if 
any proposal gains consensus there is no objective way to show it improves the 
intrinsic value without trialing and the possibility of failure and so 
protecting the existing consensus should be the highest value. This 
understanding is the reason BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

From: Eric Voskuil 
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin Protocol 
Discussion 
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces 
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases 
privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against 
any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?

And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should 
have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient 
privacy?

Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value 
proposition of Bitcoin?

e

On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
 wrote:


Good Afternoon,

I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a 
courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation 
with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link 
in my email signature block.

My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the 
transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an 
immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any 
obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for 
cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the 
existing consensus.

The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may 
experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in 
your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and 
how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest 
person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial 
affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.

My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation 
with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information 
that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making 
use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just 
my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the 
affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I 
receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process 
transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided 
here and attached.


[ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png=622=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588


The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral 
website is also publicly published,
https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer

The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and 
is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at 
first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
https://jambler.io/become-partner.php

I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between 
an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal 
details of the content of their wallet publicly.

If further clarification is re

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev]

"Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides 
the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is 
absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has 
occured."

Good Afternoon,

Requiring little argument I concur, privacy allows that you do not have snoops 
and researchers following you around looking in your purse as you transact. For 
the general public, how much you carry in your purse and where you get it from 
is none of their business. However, your employer is required to report to the 
government a record of pay, or at least maintain that record, and the store 
where you made a purchase similarly to keep records so that taxes can be paid. 
From their perspective, you do not need to know how much they keep in their 
drawer. Bitcoin directly allows your purse to be private and for the 
transaction ledger to take the scrutiny anyone should be able to apply to prove 
the ledger is honest. Maintaining an argument that consensus requires the 
ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

From: bitcoin-dev  on behalf of 
Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev 
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev 
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a participant to 
determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of as a bug.

Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides 
the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is 
absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has 
occured.

Bitcoin is digital cash.

Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
em...@esotericnonsense.com | https://esotericnonsense.com

On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency”
> (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously
> an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
>
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person
> should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are
> sufficient privacy?
>
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the
> value proposition of Bitcoin?
>
> e
>
> > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
> >  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Good Afternoon,
> >
> > I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a 
> > courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my 
> > affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation 
> > through the link in my email signature block.
> >
> > My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and 
> > the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published 
> > in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any 
> > obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable 
> > for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the 
> > existing consensus.
> >
> > The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you 
> > may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around 
> > looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to 
> > see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, 
> > for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are 
> > their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of 
> > consensus.
> >
> > My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation 
> > with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information 
> > that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only 
> > making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from 
> > LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public 
> > disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by 
> > Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt 
> > of any par

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev]

The idea of a fully-transparent bitcoin is dead and has been for many
years. This is because of various privacy tech such as CoinJoin,
Lightning Network, PayJoin, change avoidance, avoiding address reuse,
etc, along with a few new ones like CoinSwap and WabiSabi hopefully
coming soon.

On 01/03/2021 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases 
> privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument 
> against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)? 
> 
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should 
> have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient 
> privacy?
> 
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value 
> proposition of Bitcoin?
> 
> e
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Good Afternoon,
>>
>> I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a 
>> courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my 
>> affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation 
>> through the link in my email signature block.
>>
>> My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and 
>> the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in 
>> an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any 
>> obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable 
>> for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the 
>> existing consensus.
>>
>> The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you 
>> may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around 
>> looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to 
>> see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for 
>> an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are 
>> their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of 
>> consensus.
>>
>> My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation 
>> with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information 
>> that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making 
>> use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn 
>> just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure 
>> of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io 
>> wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part 
>> of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by 
>> Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
>> 
>>
>> [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
>> https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png=622=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
>> from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
>>
>>
>> The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my 
>> referral website is also publicly published,
>> https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
>>
>> The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however 
>> and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative 
>> at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
>> https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
>>
>> I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference 
>> between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to 
>> not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
>>
>> If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix 
>> some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
>>
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire
>>
>> Regards,
>> The Australian
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>>
>> et al.
>>
>>  
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au
>> www.go-overt.com
>> and other projects
>>  
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email 
>> if misdelivered.
&

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev]

Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a participant to 
determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of as a bug.

Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides 
the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is 
absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has 
occured.

Bitcoin is digital cash.

Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
em...@esotericnonsense.com | https://esotericnonsense.com

On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” 
> (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously 
> an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)? 
> 
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person 
> should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are 
> sufficient privacy?
> 
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the 
> value proposition of Bitcoin?
> 
> e
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> >  
> > Good Afternoon,
> > 
> > I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a 
> > courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my 
> > affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation 
> > through the link in my email signature block.
> > 
> > My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and 
> > the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published 
> > in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any 
> > obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable 
> > for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the 
> > existing consensus.
> > 
> > The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you 
> > may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around 
> > looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to 
> > see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, 
> > for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are 
> > their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of 
> > consensus.
> > 
> > My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation 
> > with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information 
> > that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only 
> > making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from 
> > LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public 
> > disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by 
> > Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt 
> > of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram 
> > provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
> > 
> > 
> > [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
> > https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png=622=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
> > from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
> > 
> > 
> > The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my 
> > referral website is also publicly published,
> > https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
> > 
> > The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however 
> > and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative 
> > at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal 
> > income.
> > https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
> > 
> > I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference 
> > between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to 
> > not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
> > 
> > If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix 
> > some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
> > 
> > KING JAMES HRMH
> > Great British Empire
> > 
> > Regards,
> > The Australian
> > LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > Wills
> > 
> > et al.
> > 
> >  
> > Willtech
> > 

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev]

To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases 
privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against 
any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)? 

And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should 
have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient 
privacy?

Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value 
proposition of Bitcoin?

e

> On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Good Afternoon,
> 
> I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a 
> courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my 
> affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation 
> through the link in my email signature block.
> 
> My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and 
> the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in 
> an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any 
> obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for 
> cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the 
> existing consensus.
> 
> The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you 
> may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking 
> in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where 
> and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest 
> person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial 
> affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
> 
> My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation 
> with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information 
> that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making 
> use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just 
> my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the 
> affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I 
> receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the 
> process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is 
> provided here and attached.
> 
> 
> [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
> https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png=622=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
> from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
> 
> 
> The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my 
> referral website is also publicly published,
> https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
> 
> The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however 
> and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative 
> at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
> https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
> 
> I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference 
> between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not 
> reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
> 
> If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix 
> some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
> 
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
> 
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
> 
> et al.
> 
>  
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>  
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> 
> 
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
> 
> 
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email 
> if misdelivered.
> From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces 
> Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin Protocol 
> Discussion 
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>  
> Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
> 
> I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in 
> bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com
> 
> At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a 
> bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I 
> can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
> 
> Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and movi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces via bitcoin-dev]

Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in 
bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com

At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a 
bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't 
tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.

Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving 
forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically 
talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not 
mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous 
practice at best.

Cheers
Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces


On Feb 28, 2021, 4:36 AM, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via 
bitcoin-dev  wrote:
>Good Evening,
>
>Thank-you for your advice @JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy
>features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing
>feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a
>transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all
>without any obfuscation.
>
>Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of
>a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is
>observable to the parties.
>
>The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot
>published in a public media channel may have been speculation or
>misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you
>see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through
>the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full
>disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
>
>KING JAMES HRMH
>Great British Empire
>
>Regards,
>The Australian
>LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>Wills
>
>et al.
>
>
>Willtech
>www.willtech.com.au
>www.go-overt.com
>and other projects
>
>earn.com/willtech
>linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
>m. 0487135719
>f. +61261470192
>
>
>This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
>email if misdelivered.
>________________
>From: Jeremy 
>Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
>To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin
>Protocol Discussion 
>Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
>I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy
>features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core,
>taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts
>less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy
>dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you
>mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to
>look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing
>inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.
>
>Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in
>Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning,
>etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.
>
>Do you have a source on your reporting?
>
>You may wish to rescind your nack.
>
>
>--
>@JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin><https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>
>
>On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
>bitcoin-dev
>mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
>wrote:
>Good Afternoon,
>
>It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features
>including the ability to hide transactions.
>
>If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
>
>A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full
>transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so
>that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government
>would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that
>is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies
>already.
>
>I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the
>established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core
>functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.
>
>KING JAMES HRMH
>Great British Empire
>
>Regards,
>The Australian
>LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>Wills
>
>et al.
>
>
>Willtech
>www.willtech.com.au<http://www

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev]

Good Evening,

Thank-you for your advice @JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> on the 
basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am 
prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST 
be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo 
Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.

Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset 
of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the 
parties.

The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot 
published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation 
nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is 
important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe 
may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be 
expected.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.

From: Jeremy 
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin Protocol 
Discussion 
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features 
any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way 
to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a 
manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not 
in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for 
lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it 
does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.

Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin 
via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or 
without Taproot, so the point is further moot.

Do you have a source on your reporting?

You may wish to rescind your nack.


--
@JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin><https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev 
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
 wrote:
Good Afternoon,

It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features 
including the ability to hide transactions.

If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.

A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is 
published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be 
obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to 
ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to 
have banned cryptocurrencies already.

I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the 
established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of 
Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
and other projects

earn.com/willtech<http://earn.com/willtech>
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson<http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if 
misdelivered.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

[Jeremy via bitcoin-dev]

I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy
features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core,
taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less
expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy
dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention).
For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look
structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently
to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.

Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in
Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc)
with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.

Do you have a source on your reporting?

You may wish to rescind your nack.


--
@JeremyRubin 



On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev  wrote:

> Good Afternoon,
>
> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features
> including the ability to hide transactions.
>
> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
>
> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full
> transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that
> transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have
> unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason
> India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
>
> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the
> established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core
> functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
>
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev