From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811B6C001A for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:17:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5466E4011B for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:17:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cYZzjgErOOA0 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:17:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4316.protonmail.ch (mail-4316.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.16]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75DFA40004 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:17:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:17:29 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1645787852; bh=e8vh47ShoOUfUzoaZTC4Fw2m0BhfJhiZj9wI33GV2v8=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=gL+oXfKOss1p56686aUjH8AXHaISc9GkJw6c+Nt/DSm/G6aXxWhub/uDPnjkGqKys DBv9wHbkVUDapYjAKNpd1gZm4hPRIB7lWkKwhuiETO14tGp0JTUno9U09/Vj69ekFO 6R/OcsHEAV+BNNzHuZjM223Dr77wV0ODaNdtDWTwRSLqyAAefQhVzxTZXrAOIZCRqx LWe8SJNPvqhq9Err2+nJ0C9L8MIbvg1MKvYcE/9+4DJr7t3urLBtrCzPPBf39kwtPM 3p0d1zonnu0deT89gQ3IU7NrbEfG5jysNTqZL/ir0F2QMQG0wHbTq45Z0GiP4V4xtN 4bjiDiX/6pehw== To: Billy Tetrud , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: AdamISZ Reply-To: AdamISZ Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <0642a5e59464779569f9d0aab452ee27@willtech.com.au> <96471a093e3c3d9862c3d47ebe731df6@willtech.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 13:14:54 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft-BIP: Ordinal Numbers 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:17:36 -0000 > I really don't see a world where bitcoin goes that route. Hiding coin amo= unts would make it impossible to audit the blockchain and verify that there= hasn't been inflation and the emission schedule is on schedule. It would i= nherently remove unconditional soundness from bitcoin and replace it with c= omputational soundness. Even if bitcoin did adopt it, it would keep backwar= ds compatibility with old style addresses which could continue to use ordin= als. Nit: it isn't technically correct to say that amount hiding "inherently rem= oves unconditional soundness". Such commitments can be either perfectly hid= ing or perfectly binding; it isn't even logically possible for them to be b= oth, sadly. But we are not forced to choose perfect binding; El Gamal commi= tments, for example, are perfectly binding but only computationally hiding.