From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFD2486D for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 20:13:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pl1-f172.google.com (mail-pl1-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A3BAA8 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 20:13:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f172.google.com with SMTP id t7so6148515plr.11 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 13:13:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TD/S4jes++gmE/uopZSMc/xwZELjbUDIbHEdPO6r2jg=; b=NAZrhKQhSQCY9D5GntV7blwZDTojhLKcgZgEs39SJu79YDZXbQg3GndRhlqfdm9eg8 I6RJYq0yk8TQW8Az2Z0bIBQiXXy2XK/1H6o8afqZpM3O8iAIbpmCHfE6Cdebt5GziEAY dukMueuwuEEgGZH30lqt8rLVNX4mgJ7Myl/B4sNnWIDBt6IS0T8qTQXCZwt2d3QlU7Z8 2oNLiZ0j//uAuThZ+/rk5vD0C59o09hM2Ain6HcUdH9Pv1u7MIJcMXZYWV1sKRzGBGbU Zuj994VwZgQ/ZPrZTAwRTvo+i1nT2lJlkFc2kUBLN3/IfchQqs0AQ+ocjS8gkUc6WLZr Gkvw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TD/S4jes++gmE/uopZSMc/xwZELjbUDIbHEdPO6r2jg=; b=oi0cDjeZBO+846DCdPUovn8QasqH6p+DajbIcFFLeRFVTqMGE0Bczb/mJEXpgpoczD sDp23IU7RCgTA4Mf8CIXKmIjs6aYJc31OMCRslTWvsVk7XHFZkHfqt15KuaBdemAC27Q wwNNOzOwqBZPrvI87l1Z5AVjbjoqLhEZ6wf2CSwJeRyKLAVjV8phGXJHCv2UYeObK8kN U40Y3LmeFjbqBDPyIDSnRJB3feTxcxuhQYQIs4gKj9oKE+UomGa9q80SkfFB8KPVf/F9 8tmNTtalZaUWsVxgXBbGOVh8DEVcB0uPapnXwAiqEpBQGcPzJAPB0md02NebPmK6hMeu SkQA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWn6NdlDiUqGu/ehT63DVt6oWzAwHGFz5o+devWd3dwIbicu2qd dfbt2J+PYGg8WSjbqZfV5ArPMSApP14= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzeHLYeVM9rFCxi+6V90niUr+donVBv/ICdIF1hL2ba6dva1bcukrNwoA/6sT0ouUKQi21YQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:1e7:: with SMTP id b94mr16455122plb.333.1561925583403; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 13:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:a080:16bb:29ff:b615:305b:5e87? ([2601:600:a080:16bb:29ff:b615:305b:5e87]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f15sm12553124pje.17.2019.06.30.13.13.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 30 Jun 2019 13:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Eric Voskuil X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203) In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 13:13:02 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <063D7C06-F5D8-425B-80CE-CAE03A1AAD0C@voskuil.org> References: <0DBC0DEA-C999-4AEE-B2E1-D5337ECD9405@gmail.com> <7A10C0F5-E206-43C1-853F-64AE04F57711@voskuil.org> <708D14A9-D25E-4DD2-8B6E-39A1194A7A00@voskuil.org> <1A808C88-63FD-4F45-8C95-2B8B4D99EDF5@gmail.com> <83705370-79FC-4006-BA04-4782AD5BE70B@voskuil.org> <3F46CDD5-DA80-49C8-A51F-8066680EF347@voskuil.org> To: Tamas Blummer X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 09:46:03 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized covenants with taproot enable riskless or risky lending, prevent credit inflation through fractional reserve X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 20:13:04 -0000 ICO tokens can be traded (indefinitely) for other things of value, so the co= mparison isn=E2=80=99t valid. I think we=E2=80=99ve both made our points cle= arly, so I=E2=80=99ll leave it at that. Best, Eric > On Jun 30, 2019, at 12:55, Tamas Blummer wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On Jun 30, 2019, at 20:54, Eric Voskuil wrote: >>=20 >> Could you please explain the meaning and utility of =E2=80=9Cunforgeable r= egister=E2=80=9D as it pertains to such encumbered coins? >=20 > I guess we agree that some way of keeping track of ownership is prerequisi= te for something to aquire value. > We likely also agree that the security of that ownership register has grea= t influence to the value. >=20 > The question remains if a register as utility in itself gives value to the= thing needed to use that register. > I think it does, if people are interested in what it keeps track of, for w= hatever reason, even for reasons you find bogus. >=20 > It was not intentional, but I think I just explained why Ethereum aquired h= igher market value by being register of ICO tokens. >=20 > Now back to the coins encumbered with the debt covenant: > Transactions moving them constitute a register of covered debt and you nee= d them to update that register. > Should some people find such a register useful then those coins needed to u= pdate this register will aquire value. > Does not matter if you think the concept of covered debt is just as bogus a= s ICOs. >=20 > Here some good news: If they aquire value then they offer a way to generat= e income for hodler by temporarily giving up control. >=20 > Tamas Blummer >=20 >>=20 >> The meaning in terms of Bitcoin is clear - the =E2=80=9Cowner=E2=80=9D of= outputs that represent value (i.e. in the ability to trade them for somethi= ng else) is recorded publicly and, given Bitcoin security assumptions, canno= t be faked. What is not clear is the utility of a record of outputs that can= not be traded for something else. You seem to imply that a record is valuabl= e simply because it=E2=80=99s a record. >>=20 >> e >>=20 >>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 11:35, Tamas Blummer wrote= : >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 19:41, Eric Voskuil wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 03:56, Tamas Blummer wro= te: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Hi Eric, >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2019, at 23:21, Eric Voskuil wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> What loan? Alice has paid Bob for something of no possible utility to= her, or anyone else. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Coins encumbered with the described covenant represent temporary contr= ol of a scarce resource. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Can this obtain value? That depends on the availability of final contr= ol and ability to deal with temporary control. >>>>=20 >>>> For something to become property (and therefore have marketable value) r= equires that it be both scarce and useful. Bitcoin is useful only to the ext= ent that it can be traded for something else that is useful. Above you are o= nly dealing with scarcity, ignoring utility. >>>=20 >>> There is a deeper utility of Bitcoin than it can be traded for something= else. That utility is to use its unforgeable register. >>> We have only one kind of units in this register and by having covenants w= e would create other kinds that are while encumbered not fungible with the c= ommon ones. >>>=20 >>> Units are certainly less desirable if encumbered with a debt covenant. Y= ou say no one would assign them any value. >>>=20 >>> I am not that sure as they still offer the utility of using the unforgea= ble register, in this case a register of debt covered by reserves. >>> You also doubt forcing debt to be covered by reserves is a good idea, I g= ot that, but suppose we do not discuss this here. >>> If there are people who think it is a good idea, then they would find ha= ving an unforgeable register of it useful and therefore units needed to main= tain that register valuable to some extent. >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> I think you do not show the neccesary respect of the market. >>>>=20 >>>> I=E2=80=99m not sure what is meant here by respect, or how much of it i= s necessary. I am merely explaining the market. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> You are not explaining an existing market but claim that market that is n= ot yet there will follow your arguments. >>>=20 >>>>> Your rant reminds me of renowed economists who still argue final contr= ol Bitcoin can not have value, you do the same proclaiming that temporary co= ntrol of Bitcoin can not have value. >>>>=20 >>>> It seems to me you have reversed the meaning of temporary and final. Bi= tcoin is useful because of the presumption that there is no finality of cont= rol. One presumes an ability to trade control of it for something else. This= is temporary control. Final control would be the case in which, at some poi= nt, it can no longer be traded, making it worthless at that point. If this i= s known to be the case it implies that it it worthless at all prior points a= s well. >>>>=20 >>>> These are distinct scenarios. The fact that temporary (in my usage) con= trol implies the possibility of value does not imply that finality of contro= l does as well. The fact that (renowned or otherwise) people have made error= s does not imply that I am making an error. These are both non-sequiturs. >>>>=20 >>>>> I say, that temporary control does not have value until means dealing w= ith it are offered, and that is I work on. Thereafter might obtain value if f= inal control is deemed too expensive or not attainable, we shall see. >>>>=20 >>>> The analogy to rental of a consumable good does not apply to the case o= f a non-consumable good. If it cannot be traded and cannot be consumed it ca= nnot obtain marketable value. To this point it matters not whether it exists= . >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> I meant with control the control of entries in the register which I thin= k is the deeper utility of Bitcoin. Final control is meant to be the opposit= e of temporary which is the time limited control with some expiry. >>>=20 >>> Thank you for your thoughts as they help to sharpen my arguments. >>>=20 >>> Best, >>>=20 >>> Tamas Blummer >>>=20 >>>> Best, >>>> Eric >>>>=20 >>>>> Tamas Blummer >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>=20 >=20