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 EC3391AE1 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:51:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr1-f54.google.com (mail-wr1-f54.google.com [209.85.221.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BD28836 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:51:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f54.google.com with SMTP id p11so6483268wro.5 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 05:51:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=/v80qezNi/PY3a+tDRK0ntMwrARnnvINZKdlx8H+YB0=; b=sQfL7OE80ec/VJFo/KTrG4vLa7BT/QfVsC6VR/0UzrJ6bax7cBZSM3ZL1Nq65502D4 vl8orilBoizY40fX81hlg8byabqOVOH9KLF3WMKSCysQdUlDmgnPUea1ZVyWF4FTK9Yg FCUJKI1kyOJG7Q2iOBiQ42RMypk32NTeVRuoQGYXbOu1IsXXwJETBI0imaJnjcxLh7mM dAiDfZkz9qweGuttZwcbXq/1CsRc/pmfhrR7wsG6jhQTu8GI3T+9Jnql1mVhnUjH7pKa VcdXZWTjsSoB9IO84HizpPujA/Rp/dfxoK9GzPoizdfE4z6l2U6mSJi0nemCmru6SZJR cflg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=/v80qezNi/PY3a+tDRK0ntMwrARnnvINZKdlx8H+YB0=; b=RFegSFWOfwbclXzVinsEnddBASOabctsSW0ba8yZg7zHMS8QdC293JId3/EAi3IXBL LnWgJUl1C2rHZLCaEqc4LICVXIr4eXp/4lTyrk7LxG3BHocT2oOzbkKy0a3ad2gXgLYz de9xEqMbHlBteeqW5FQLyYuLBqB0QVxLrAFMvisZdH/AmIGniTmbUbHiP6noVzp0JauC q8sTGdkHaYxjVJSeyrxmt+SjqVEzltBuB6ZCXmlvQh4+fzgDs//0l8oFPio3ZjyUCskT h83D6Ga/HB/XEXLi6dlOGuHxOxW66lMexJcuM0l6zlRz7l92CwVyvoYVk0FV3AE8S8YW jKNg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWvrc/GOPALNerjuzgUdrHLHEV2+ASmU8qw8O1YYRIIWyxdsNo4 XmQBQoOcwKLA7vmTbVFWGRg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwiLDl/aKWycJnLTwz6NAPtUO//fHhVy8WDiSzpkrpLatvS2BOpuqvuXu3G+9BjoWjnENVgvw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:9425:: with SMTP id 34mr16481969wrq.38.1562071887819; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 05:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dd67126425f545397fd5b804cc.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (p200300DD67126425F545397FD5B804CC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:dd:6712:6425:f545:397f:d5b8:4cc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y18sm2674750wmi.23.2019.07.02.05.51.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jul 2019 05:51:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Tamas Blummer Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5EA16DFE-CFEC-4E35-A5A8-1107330CF08D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 14:51:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: To: ZmnSCPxj References: <0DBC0DEA-C999-4AEE-B2E1-D5337ECD9405@gmail.com> <063D7C06-F5D8-425B-80CE-CAE03A1AAD0C@voskuil.org> <0AA10217-E1CC-46D1-9B43-038CEEF942CD@gmail.com> <0Bwi2ejRw4BgoABZ0X0kBdwLAkIKEv1svoyi0zqGQPeqV1g8xR43tBMgYoS52Vcxkgj7DndmNLIje40au51trIGTvrpcet8GivTgqysVC8w=@protonmail.com> <0190F226-7133-4B6D-8750-25CAB5C73D17@gmail.com> <7E8yyDSqmXEfFtcZRx2vdmPuovamf67X6aDHrokgaYScm01zPivVKpI3Br2PrzBdVdvKBqECP96EFB5ebT8sPfMWU8npJwS_wujFs00bcqU=@protonmail.com> <38FAD812-A764-49F5-BA80-ED10685A1714@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, 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: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 13:00:30 +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: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 12:51:30 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5EA16DFE-CFEC-4E35-A5A8-1107330CF08D Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_115EBD6F-24E7-4D7D-ADFB-60E1B963DEF6" --Apple-Mail=_115EBD6F-24E7-4D7D-ADFB-60E1B963DEF6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hello ZmnSCPxj, > On Jul 2, 2019, at 12:33, ZmnSCPxj wrote: >=20 > =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 = Original Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2= =80=90 > On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 5:30 PM, Tamas Blummer = > wrote: >=20 >> The advertiser would thereby put the funds of the HODLer on risk of = his misbehavior, which means the HODLer would have to trust the = advertizing service. >=20 > No it would not :) You are right. I noticed after sending my reply and then I sent two = other. I apologize for being noisy. Let me consolidate my thinking, here. If there is a use for UTXOs with temporary control, then those who want = that use will pay for it. A user of a service that requires temporary control UTXOs would need to = cover: 1. fees required by the service 2. the opportunity cost of temporary ownership paid to the original = holder who gave up control. If the service is operated by an entity billing user then it can use = UTXOs of minimal value for its operation and practically ignore = opportunity interest. This is the case with theater tickets just and other simple colored coin = like use of Bitcoin. Also in case of the unchained advertizement, if the = service bills its user for its internal re-allocation of an UTXO, then why would it need to use = significant value temorary control UTXOs? Actually why not use plain = UTXOs, to start with? If however the service is a common good, a network without owner and = therefore not billing on behalf of someone, but wants to protect itself = from spam, then it is could require temporary access to significant = value UTXOs and thereby induce opportunity cost to user. Alternatively = it could require burning ordinary UTXOs. Burning indirectly benefits all = HODLer, temporary control benefits those who consciously gave up = control. I dislike burning as it is unsustainable. If the implementation of temporary use is enforced by consenus such that = it is transitive, then temporary use could be re-rented or sold to = recover opportunity cost for no longer needed temporary access, making = it useable for an other service. Temporary access UTXOs with covenants allows us to build spam limited = public services that are not owned by an operator and financially = benefit HODLer offering them riskless interest. Tamas Blummer --Apple-Mail=_115EBD6F-24E7-4D7D-ADFB-60E1B963DEF6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

Hello = ZmnSCPxj,

On Jul 2, 2019, at 12:33, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:
=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80= =90=E2=80=90 Original Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90= =E2=80=90=E2=80=90
On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 5:30 PM, Tamas = Blummer <tamas.blummer@gmail.com> wrote:

The advertiser would thereby = put the funds of the HODLer on risk of his misbehavior, which means the = HODLer would have to trust the advertizing service.

No it would not :)


You are right. I noticed after sending = my reply and then I sent two other. I apologize for being = noisy.

Let me = consolidate my thinking, here.

If there is a use for UTXOs with = temporary control, then those who want that use will pay for = it. 

A = user of a service that requires temporary control UTXOs would need to = cover: 

1. = fees required by the service
2. the opportunity = cost of temporary ownership paid to the original holder who gave up = control.

If = the service is operated by an entity billing user then it can use UTXOs = of minimal value for its operation and practically ignore opportunity = interest.
This is the case with theater tickets = just and other simple colored coin like use of Bitcoin. Also in case of = the unchained advertizement, if the service bills its = user 
for its internal re-allocation of an = UTXO, then why would it need to use significant value temorary control = UTXOs? Actually why not use plain UTXOs, to start with?

If however the service = is a common good, a network without owner and therefore not billing on = behalf of someone, but wants to protect itself from spam, then it is = could require temporary access to significant value UTXOs and thereby = induce opportunity cost to user. Alternatively it could require burning = ordinary UTXOs. Burning indirectly benefits all HODLer, temporary = control benefits those who consciously gave up control. I dislike = burning as it is unsustainable.

If the implementation of temporary use = is enforced by consenus such that it is transitive, then temporary use = could be re-rented or sold to recover opportunity cost for no longer = needed temporary access, making it useable for an other = service. 

Temporary access UTXOs with covenants allows us to build spam = limited public services that are not owned by an operator and = financially benefit HODLer offering them riskless interest.

Tamas = Blummer
= --Apple-Mail=_115EBD6F-24E7-4D7D-ADFB-60E1B963DEF6-- --Apple-Mail=_5EA16DFE-CFEC-4E35-A5A8-1107330CF08D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE6YNJViYMM6Iv5f9e9nKRxRdxORwFAl0bU1MACgkQ9nKRxRdx ORzV9wgAv1qyL2ho+CtAbjcfQuG0y7OevfmRhJ+oC4EncWPBPGpTYdbkyiYetrhx X3ebW5SSdMDxhzbVy4IXAu7/RJBjrcZYn0Zbt7BzgIl4xCNhdGlNNKOXlenyc7TF sUMiPBI1vgvTEJ7iS696osuM2w8b+1aWHSNISqkOfFcpPlEs/bc0b2ZmycD1P3D+ Q6qLaPrImQzjdm8f4b3yplI9OxvDbqlKR79Js6GEj0NJa1tHvBjZV2ru42TY0jdJ cUtNcaxYOAufL/NoK1371JuWK2k/wwdP2oxJ6ZRWJVlaLFJLwCe9l/tLm1wKTBc3 m7GGrKVXXTymm/KxUwAephxb+E+l9g== =VhSu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5EA16DFE-CFEC-4E35-A5A8-1107330CF08D--