From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EA8C002D for ; Sun, 1 May 2022 11:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2271813F4 for ; Sun, 1 May 2022 11:41:57 +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 IDJyp_OCCWsZ for ; Sun, 1 May 2022 11:41:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch (mail-4325.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.25]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0194281396 for ; Sun, 1 May 2022 11:41:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 11:41:50 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail2; t=1651405313; bh=MzPFGNkZPfhiLlOlAdb7idu+aJTRYWew1jhAXty6uEE=; 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=N2kJ+9C+FyHRawrmHQlDKihpyRCE1lqwGymAVfOP0S/9YDTX6F+SF3aRC8Q8qY6Ai DxCz4eXx5rf1PhbyMx0RdYr96xKW+H4Cev82TrWRxd5/8I0pSg8q7TAC2uCwoGtrI8 S9IkGkF6qnclUSdHx92q1C9OEqMnkL6i7SK0sd8FPCZNGwkUeReVFkKHA3cXgW2e1k K6YLqIVqkNT2FvbsHJ2MNWcSEWpVOZ2CEV3e+Pvu6WLMQBqo6antNj0V99WPQNpQgP u8Pgq1b+z5o3UFeUQE6T7L5NSY06nBMQ9BFbmrNcBqSqNU4lF8xBS+O0Zr2JpJWIY9 zJ3JHhfITRniw== To: Chris Belcher From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <82948428-29a3-e50a-a54a-520a83f39bba@riseup.net> 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 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Sun, 01 May 2022 11:41:57 -0000 Good morning again Chris, I wonder if there would be an incentive to *rent* out a fidelity bond, i.e.= I am interested in application A, you are interested in application B, and= you rent my fidelity bond for application B. We can use a pay-for-signature protocol now that Taproot is available, so t= hat the signature for the certificate for your usage of application B can o= nly be completed if I reveal a secret via a signature on another Taproot UT= XO that gets me the rent for the fidelity bond. I do not know if this would count as "abuse" or just plain "economic sensib= ility". But a time may come where people just offer fidelity bonds for lease withou= t actually caring about the actual applications it is being used *for*. If the point is simply to make it costly to show your existence, whether yo= u pay for the fidelity bond by renting it, or by acquiring your own Bitcoin= s and foregoing the ability to utilize it for some amount of time (which sh= ould cost closely to renting the fidelity bond from a provider), should pro= bably not matter economically. You mention that JoinMarket clients now check for fidelity bonds not being = used across multiple makers, how is this done exactly, and does the techniq= ue not deserve a section in this BIP? Regards, ZmnSCPxj