From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0607BC002D for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 16:54:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E704182BC8 for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 16:54:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45CB8NHWiJCM for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 16:54:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4027.protonmail.ch (mail-4027.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E572382B49 for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 16:54:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 16:54:31 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail2; t=1652201677; bh=nZD4DHTOXcN9vCcWyzcs1l54Lft31QeXe5FpXLkC8i4=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To: Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=QSb5tSlZhXYJfv4D83RpMaDpp3LX5FmYXw+19v1AkKiOeXAp1ARrcyzJ/p91pZ07H z5CJIKM+DlXNnO1AVnsjIGeUzbTgTXF1iZc7nPSOxpN+1LcYgTd1YUbZWetIiystV5 bVy9buUNFq7gd6QVbaBRgvm+ei1l8SbkCcmU1UjHhgX5B0rzT0jKnvbEG3wKQRepKI DTacXgSRKILkn9EochblASo5mAuCAUcDd2mE1+YbMyZrZs18bYInIBnuVFbW9Ye7O1 20likVu+1jggah37Q5DHKkqRxKAKOjrOCDtlfW4/M4lW5ZyHK5VR2m0DS5Q2xWs2Tm 6Stsyf1IPandw== To: AdamISZ , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <22c80504-e648-e021-866e-ca5a5db3b247@riseup.net> <82948428-29a3-e50a-a54a-520a83f39bba@riseup.net> Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond for BIP39 seeds 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: Tue, 10 May 2022 16:54:41 -0000 Good morning waxwing, > ------- Original Message ------- > On Sunday, May 1st, 2022 at 11:01, Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-= dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > Hello ZmnSCPxj, > > This is an intended feature. I'm thinking that the same fidelity bond > > can be used to running a JoinMarket maker as well as a Teleport > > (Coinswap) maker. > > I don't believe it's abusable. It would be a problem if the same > > fidelity bond is used by two makers in the same application, but > > JoinMarket takers are already coded to check for this, and Teleport > > takers will soon as well. Using the same bond across different > > applications is fine. > > Best, > > CB > > Hi Chris, Zmn, list, > I've noodled about this a few times in the past (especially when trying t= o figure out an LSAG style ring sig based FB for privacy, but that does not= seem workable), and I can't decide the right perspective on it. > > A user sacrifices X amount of time-value-of-money (henceforth TVOM) by co= mmitting in Joinmarket with FB1. He then uses the same FB1 in Teleport, let= 's say. If he gets benefit Y from using FB1 in Joinmarket, and benefit Z in= Teleport, then presumably he'll only do it if (probabilistically) he think= s Y+Z > X. > > But as an assessor of FB1 in Joinmarket, I don't know if it's also being = used for Teleport, and more importantly, if it's being used somewhere else = I'm not even aware of. Now I'm not an economist I admit, so I might not be = intuit-ing this situation right, but it fees to me like the right answer is= "It's fine for a closed system, but not an open one." (i.e. if the set of = possible usages is not something that all participants have fixed in advanc= e, then there is an effective Sybilling problem, like I'm, as an assessor, = thinking that sacrificed value 100 is there, whereas actually it's only 15,= or whatever.) > > As I mentioned in https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserv= er/issues/993#issuecomment-1110784059 , I did wonder about domain separatio= n tags because of this, and as I vaguely alluded to there, I'm really not s= ure about it. > > If it was me I'd want to include domain separation via part of the signed= message, since I don't see how it hurts? For scenarios where reuse is fine= , reuse can still happen. Ah, yes, now I remember. I discussed this with Tamas as well in the past and that is why we conclude= d that in defiads, each UTXO can host at most one advertisement at any one = time. In the case of defiads there would be a sequence counter where a higher-seq= uenced advertisement would replace lower-sequenced advertisement, so you co= uld update, but at any one time, for a defiads node, only one advertisement= per UTXO could be used. This assumed that there would be a defiads network with good gossip propaga= tion so our thinking at the time was that a higher-sequenced advertisement = would quickly replace lower-sequenced ones on the network. But it is simpler if such replacement would not be needed, and you could th= en commit to the advertisement directly on the UTXO via a tweak. Each advertisement would also have a specific application ID that it applie= d to, and applications on top of defiads would ask the local defiads node t= o give it the ads that match a specific application ID, so a UTXO could onl= y be used for one application at a time. This would be equivalent to domain separation tags that waxwing mentions. Regards, ZmnSCPxj