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 205A91621 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 01:46:48 +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 6ADB04C3 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 01:46:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f196.google.com with SMTP id z75so4977545pgz.5 for ; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:46:47 -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=sgcbCBQfL8UnII2v5I+YiW6R90PEMgO6b/5Prnq/Q9k=; b=S37L38zopUChzmHldNcWD1vghA4kmCx9hENSUke7WIrt/37o9K6EcXudiDasl1V4Or vkoBGQe8wur/2ISWK6nT5UdcjBOVwyL/7F1fOvXwu2Os62XOICs9ljDG6yXXFgEIRM9w I+cG3mtlSl+XjXcMxx+NcYhIlEw82043E0vSyrPrWIZhYlDvHEDqScQgDloO9SLtD84E AuEs5dDDJR6F96NnyJGtT3iIF+ac87d3GwXRlA3BEyxvnC2iuDiF8zdJJqmy+MxldWwq HLMxuvs0aZyTmLLnpXvgmI3GEYB31WW8cYYj28BjdSMdp/NB0GBj8tboQ1MdbJJYjyq3 ehXQ== 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=sgcbCBQfL8UnII2v5I+YiW6R90PEMgO6b/5Prnq/Q9k=; b=HYHTtYWunNslNq/mj8IVAeuEsX1Vd1SAeZu5tT/Lwg2RBxyKOkt9hHSkOAtubcBdU5 BBGkg0nJWeS1r4pivjTLfiIv5M7h6w96cM/7Tj8lkhHm2VgWsEydFRnHKAjf+kzpgFHW 4+uiwITUPWawLHMQkAa0mo1ytBQysw1Td/1W1JGSK8qhghx16vraTaxbHOICy3FseC2i O0ljOYRcqZw0MpdnIjKB6HF5enou/Juj62c+qpdJiuYnzOwxuPSPAeW1s2L1/6xLV7go S6glgDemyZFr/KXniPmrIJGoPnSijKfJCjPryPeASDiZikFRqhUEn1zbwQMLuKMUjISG aoiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWrtz8zVFAEtKVpe6T8NKQEDm9fy3OkGA2H+1FU0sXBGBDvBRjr 97tCtMdbYu25HIpdrSG4umvvaQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz150sfh2w1S51cpjWaaCRQhcp7cASD9koT4fSAEN3GyVJVFh5Dd6fbJUrtZv5C6K0Kt9cXpA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:3ac2:: with SMTP id b60mr9075408pjc.74.1562377606914; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:46:46 -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 h12sm10390599pje.12.2019.07.05.18.46.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 18:46:46 -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: <0851B842-34A1-427F-95DC-A1D6AB416FB9@voskuil.org> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 18:46:45 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <91607BB7-B57E-4F28-9DDF-D22B8E98739B@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> <0851B842-34A1-427F-95DC-A1D6AB416FB9@voskuil.org> 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 12:48:29 +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 01:46:48 -0000 > On Jul 5, 2019, at 18:28, Eric Voskuil wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 >> 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 e= liminates the value of the time lock cost to the ad market. The most obvious= example is one encumbering the coin to himself, then releasing it with his o= wn two signatures whenever he wants. In other words, there is no encumbrance= at all, just a bunch of pointless obscurantion. >>=20 >> You still do not understand. >> I strongly suggest actually reading the post instead of skimming it. >=20 > I am responding to the cryptoeconomic principles, not the implementation d= etails. Based on your comments here I am not misrepresenting those principle= s. >=20 > For example, I have shown that the multisig unlock implementation reduces t= he presumably-encumbered UTXO to simply a UTXO. You have not disputed that. I= n fact below you have accepted it (more below). >=20 >> The advertisement is broadcast to new nodes on the ad network if and only= if its backing UTXO remains unspent. >> Once the UTXO is spent, then the advertisement is considered no longer va= lid and will be outright deleted by existing nodes, and new nodes will not l= earn of them (and would consider it spam if it is forced to them when the UT= XO is already spent, possibly banning the node that pushes the advertisement= at them). >>=20 >> Thus the locked-ness of the UTXO is the lifetime of the advertisement. >=20 > The term =E2=80=9Clocked=E2=80=9D here is misused. A unspent output that c= an 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 obviou= s: >=20 >> Once you disencumber the coins (whether your own, or rented) then your ad= vertisement is gone; forever. >=20 > As I have shown, there is no *actual* encumbrance. >=20 >> Your advertisement exists only as long as the UTXO is unspent. >=20 > Exactly, which implies *any* UTXO is sufficient. All that the ad network r= equires is proof of ownership of any UTXO. >=20 > Unspentness is not actually a necessary cost (expense). All coin is always= represented as UTXOs. If one has a hoard of coin there is no necessary incr= emental cost of identifying those coins to =E2=80=9Cback=E2=80=9D ads.This i= sn=E2=80=99t altered by the proposed design. >=20 > The only cost would be to have a hoard that one does not otherwise desire,= representing an opportunity cost. Yet, as I have also pointed out, the amou= nt of that opportunity cost can simply be spent (or burned) by the advertise= r, representing the same cost. So covering the case where one cannot raise t= he capital to =E2=80=9Cback=E2=80=9D one=E2=80=99s ad does not require renta= l, as the cost of the otherwise rental can just be spent outright. >=20 > Presumably it would be ideal to transfer the value of those spends to peop= le who provably present the ads for effective viewing (i.e., the AdWords bus= iness model). It is of course this market-driven cost of presenting an ad th= at provides the spam protection/definition for AdWords. It=E2=80=99s worth pointing out at this point that this implies Google, etc.= would achieve the same result by simply accepting Bitcoin for ad placement.= In your model the advertiser is paying only for access to people who wish t= o avoid spam, not for targeted and actual placement. In other words your ad s= ystem would be directly competing with others that provide material addition= al value for the advertiser beyond anti-spam. If nothing else this implies t= he return on coin =E2=80=9Clock-up=E2=80=9D would be exceeded by its opportu= nity cost. > Best, > Eric >=20 >> Regards. >> ZmnSCPxj