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 EBDAA14DD for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 01:28:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg1-f196.google.com (mail-pg1-f196.google.com [209.85.215.196]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A0C44C3 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 01:28:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f196.google.com with SMTP id m4so4976402pgk.0 for ; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:28:05 -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=nMMXiygY0N2teNm6cfq9xHynOPgL7qdhgPho9qZJUoY=; b=w0m8iqJSGFWrM2FHkkJxYwFcgBdxr08MsZSQU6Cw/7muwwGWIzbqt+d+R5MNdHDZy/ wh5JN299djBzElJOhxxeReTCOVb+/hVlVXdMI9mIerq8NdKcmBkMLODWL1miRk6AiFje HjRbAQxFNBDvB1vfevfx4KjGQaFmRae+QYAzaZocwgGxHvHMCH0/JYvloDXY1xaKMWta IkzRhiY/3levBjWRpv0yZsdBY1upaSYKYGb/6Sd5sRcR3CFrVS0KXAq8UnrSVmtkoH8Z 4OmYcLaqsXrOgUujMhVUQ3cXxpQthTig44DzYYwuv6D7J244Xtbli5GtDw9tZ4fKfVPu GFjQ== 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=nMMXiygY0N2teNm6cfq9xHynOPgL7qdhgPho9qZJUoY=; b=jePhgoS5cy8Flm5HsysQKPgbG3/5GmNWrrqbeqrmyT9HlqPCR9Fcw9kHcAg0t4OZ8B 1x9aBoIWcYgapHvfSXDxfF8EwtUAJ/I5+TigyVaavJHPOJBZjydIHihdpT8HyNuXICb/ dGMe+LZVF1WPegdZq8o551Il9hVwJoOaXhrP4CSUzwtqdKvmj91XMfwye/BEfYhJP2U5 iZRjO08C2XiTizJ3wmlSD0P6/5velRnM+wAAi/0SZPW/0JGEiEwAet7kgBd9WfVbpwHK gE7cTXqBIr4pJ1b669OXzpL6sfaKPgONi4IEasEHh7UnMl6QpZpmiaN0SirYAQ7EoAgn IdKg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXmB6jyOZl0CpV+lGUBJldmDTZD++1CGPCrdy8PepWPVkJtfFbU QdQCx2BhDqgLrsTYoh/Hzq/x1A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwGlHESIo8RZ161HW3Ci1/fAa/nx67DpalSZ/asfwJvjRP+0B+uNx9Mh1K6rxvMDkCTLM+3nQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:b312:: with SMTP id d18mr8689441pjr.35.1562376484899; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:a080:16bb:cc2:2a58:54e6:f4ef? ([2601:600:a080:16bb:cc2:2a58:54e6:f4ef]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 1sm10109092pfe.102.2019.07.05.18.28.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:28:04 -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: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 18:28:03 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0851B842-34A1-427F-95DC-A1D6AB416FB9@voskuil.org> References: <0DBC0DEA-C999-4AEE-B2E1-D5337ECD9405@gmail.com> <6B9A04E2-8EEE-40A0-8B39-64AA0F478CAB@voskuil.org> <4mT6iC4Va7Afg15a5NLbddAnF2a_vAcQSXYr_jg_5IyEK2ezblJff7EJZakoqvp4BJlLitt9Zlq1_l5JadR0nVss7VDPW-pv8jXGh7lkFC4=@protonmail.com> To: ZmnSCPxj 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: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 01:34:57 +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: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 01:28:06 -0000 > On Jul 5, 2019, at 17:17, ZmnSCPxj wrote: >=20 > Good morning Eric, >=20 >> But it=E2=80=99s worth noting that early recovery of the UTXO entirely el= iminates the value of the time lock cost to the ad market. The most obvious e= xample is one encumbering the coin to himself, then releasing it with his ow= n two signatures whenever he wants. In other words, there is no encumbrance a= t all, just a bunch of pointless obscurantion. >=20 > You still do not understand. > I strongly suggest actually reading the post instead of skimming it. I am responding to the cryptoeconomic principles, not the implementation det= ails. Based on your comments here I am not misrepresenting those principles.= For example, I have shown that the multisig unlock implementation reduces th= e presumably-encumbered UTXO to simply a UTXO. You have not disputed that. I= n fact below you have accepted it (more below). > The advertisement is broadcast to new nodes on the ad network if and only i= f its backing UTXO remains unspent. > Once the UTXO is spent, then the advertisement is considered no longer val= id and will be outright deleted by existing nodes, and new nodes will not le= arn of them (and would consider it spam if it is forced to them when the UTX= O is already spent, possibly banning the node that pushes the advertisement a= t them). >=20 > Thus the locked-ness of the UTXO is the lifetime of the advertisement. The term =E2=80=9Clocked=E2=80=9D here is misused. A unspent output that can= be spent at any time is just an unspent output. The fact that you can =E2=80= =9Cunencumber=E2=80=9D your own coins should make this exceedingly obvious: > Once you disencumber the coins (whether your own, or rented) then your adv= ertisement is gone; forever. As I have shown, there is no *actual* encumbrance. > Your advertisement exists only as long as the UTXO is unspent. Exactly, which implies *any* UTXO is sufficient. All that the ad network req= uires is proof of ownership of any UTXO. Unspentness is not actually a necessary cost (expense). All coin is always r= epresented as UTXOs. If one has a hoard of coin there is no necessary increm= ental cost of identifying those coins to =E2=80=9Cback=E2=80=9D ads.This isn= =E2=80=99t altered by the proposed design. The only cost would be to have a hoard that one does not otherwise desire, r= epresenting an opportunity cost. Yet, as I have also pointed out, the amount= of that opportunity cost can simply be spent (or burned) by the advertiser,= representing the same cost. So covering the case where one cannot raise the= capital to =E2=80=9Cback=E2=80=9D one=E2=80=99s ad does not require rental,= as the cost of the otherwise rental can just be spent outright. Presumably it would be ideal to transfer the value of those spends to people= who provably present the ads for effective viewing (i.e., the AdWords busin= ess model). It is of course this market-driven cost of presenting an ad that= provides the spam protection/definition for AdWords. Best, Eric > Regards. > ZmnSCPxj