From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4411BC0001 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:46:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE6D4EBA6 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:46:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9N57RrxpomuE for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:46:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 19:47:55 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B40674DDE7 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:46:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id n10so18352061pgl.10 for ; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 23:46:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=q2B8ljciu7h1wlDSj6qwcfcpOmhvpmgR7Yy3U0eaAZw=; b=ii3MEc/uSJQzb1ZgtqBTJl1X9uw5ObGVtG0xT7M5xbHGGlQamV2qTQHE7/MWYndFI1 TVQ0aX1VQHAukTJ/IgrwP8oIdfOy0PHc1soTk6Zxor8y5bBJjMk/FFRHUsOHjeEdwgUC leh6ozQ3kr7Ex9N9v6qFaeTsFTrS5YjlTUuhkX9pas6Bik/f9IA0JA/Ljq8jOHU4Ta4f mhtSh8jaYYkEeQPs+A9ncegjs5vtnxFVvaQ+bC0e4wkMlMlTXZA/912T8CYT6I4ljozY rQXiETD7HuKyyzw2ED4znZb3QINrrJWvtbzAu5+0PoJnOy3O11WHTpZjdVL6sL7BPldC FPOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=q2B8ljciu7h1wlDSj6qwcfcpOmhvpmgR7Yy3U0eaAZw=; b=q/3y5Sq6BgG3Z/lN2BGCwmd8DogeVFa9DbdbQnAy7BYbxSoZdIA5J1kDGp8aS5k1H5 hoUd5/7bkN0YN8CdRhnM8Xxgz3fHMxXnr0vblR6pWLkn48f1JCOtpLuiMnmL55vff5zP B8MTV6kEwykUJ+WBejItqdUwUyUFN9BXUkYtqJXrGtq9QG6PaQhd0Hx36Xde6bRt9Faq W8YboA5OG64fIssBis8VceQlDD44dA7weISoC35BgDJtheUlmXAPFdI59uwOUnLeRyVO pUQvyQQvyaaxwECqZRyQT2gHxTj9/WoD/L609zwxYXqSoioXcoji6G485R/szABVH3HV 7Hiw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533FF8a9V02o3K9IQTZbtpN4sr8+KvNmWydhaySV+EzTSmHCGS5P q2ttSorSEXx2dH/yLs0nx721wQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQXHXxtKJdhAKycRrIcTy7sDdv8suYg5mazD+gxhsbZv4Gc38ZVITU3A1gitYztZMSDdptBA== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9182:0:b029:1de:e96f:a866 with SMTP id x2-20020aa791820000b02901dee96fa866mr2574952pfa.67.1614843992119; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 23:46:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9c00:1d0::250e? ([2601:600:9c00:1d0::250e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g26sm1022918pfi.38.2021.03.03.23.46.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Mar 2021 23:46:31 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-EED4AEE4-AC86-470D-8BBA-158C893D1D1B Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Eric Voskuil Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 23:46:30 -0800 Message-Id: <0FC5D37F-9CB8-4E78-892A-5C8768E90EAD@voskuil.org> References: In-Reply-To: To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18D52) Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 07:46:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail-EED4AEE4-AC86-470D-8BBA-158C893D1D1B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your Excellency, You don=E2=80=99t seem to understand how Bitcoin currently works. A signatur= e is a mathematical /probabilistical proof that the person who signed (the o= utput) is the same person who created the script (the input) that was paid t= o (i.e. not fraud). You cannot see that he is that person, you can only do t= he math - giving yourself a reasonable assurance that it is not a fraud. Taproot is not a proposed change to this design, so I=E2=80=99m not sure to w= hat exactly you are objecting. The math continues to be the sole assurance a= nd visibility that the money was created and transferred in accordance with t= he agreed rules (consensus). There is no other way for anyone to =E2=80=9Clo= ok at=E2=80=9D potential fraud on the chain. If you are aware of any flaw in the existing or proposed mathematics that wo= uld enable fraudulent creation or transfer of bitcoin, please spell it out f= or us. e > On Mar 3, 2021, at 21:10, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH wrote: >=20 > Good Afternoon, >=20 > I will reply privately here, what do you say I am not in support of fungib= ility? This fungibility is because of consensus including transparency. Othe= rwise, if it is just a fraud no-one can look at it. >=20 > KING JAMES HRMH >=20 > Regards, > The Australian > LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) > of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire > MR. Damian A. James Williamson > Wills >=20 > et al. >=20 > =20 > Willtech > www.willtech.com.au > www.go-overt.com > and other projects > =20 > earn.com/willtech > linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson >=20 >=20 > m. 0487135719 > f. +61261470192 >=20 >=20 > This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this ema= il if misdelivered. > From: bitcoin-dev on behal= f of Felipe Micaroni Lalli via bitcoin-dev > Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2021 3:30 AM > To: eric@voskuil.org ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK > =20 > Dear LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH), a.k.a. "The Australian", >=20 > This discussion list is serious stuff, please stop making noise. Fungibili= ty is a desirable property, anyway. >=20 > Thank you! >=20 >> 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 hon= est. >=20 > Actually, that=E2=80=99s exactly what it does. A logical/mathematical requ= irement (necessity) is also called a proof. >=20 > e --Apple-Mail-EED4AEE4-AC86-470D-8BBA-158C893D1D1B Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Your Excellency,

You don=E2=80=99t 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 create= d the script (the input) that was paid to (i.e. not fraud). You cannot see t= hat he is that person, you can only do the math - giving yourself a reasonab= le assurance that it is not a fraud.

Taproot is not a proposed change to this design, so I=E2=80=99m no= t sure to what exactly you are objecting. The math continues to be the sole a= ssurance and visibility that the money was created and transferred in accord= ance with the agreed rules (consensus). There is no other way for anyone to =E2= =80=9Clook at=E2=80=9D potential fraud on the chain.
<= br>
If you are aware of any flaw in the existing or pr= oposed mathematics that would enable fraudulent creation or transfer of bitc= oin, please spell it out for us.

e

On Mar 3, 2021, a= t 21:10, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live.com.au> wrote:<= br>
Good Afternoon,

I will reply privately here, what do you say I am not in support of fungibil= ity? This fungibility is because of consensus including transparency. Otherw= ise, 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 advi= ce. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
From: bitcoin-dev <b= itcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Felipe M= icaroni Lalli via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g>
Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2021 3:30 AM
To: eric@voskuil.org <eric@voskuil.org&g= t;; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.= org>
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 bitco= in-dev <bitcoin-= dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> co= nsensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.

Actuall= y, that=E2=80=99s exactly what it does. A logical/mathematical requirement (= necessity) is also called a proof.

e

= --Apple-Mail-EED4AEE4-AC86-470D-8BBA-158C893D1D1B--