From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2642BC0001 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:32:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7484ED59 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:32:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EuSrL45FD1CU for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:32:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40137.protonmail.ch (mail-40137.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.137]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C3174ED45 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:32:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:32:18 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1615973547; bh=pZ/4RsugwbzM57rctMu9xt3PRyQV1sE6071l1f8Ox1k=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=WLOAFy/ZjcJVhvsYP2s6LiwMaor4v0V66D8bT20AMCp0QPvm+uDoHlDmbRerzz2/J I8tmC1iaaig0Eod1A3Zffpt5HEhMa7teYnavpJ1nmntQb17Vjnsdj5ybBo+54l6MNe o0mkATyhUSusztR+4B3UxDIHI7fCQ27DaShIuJqk= To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <170b27c0-436f-c440-e3c3-f9577b764972@riseup.net> <932f2f2866cac087a207f8757c9df4b776ccdb04.camel@willtech.com.au>, <4ltFpTt8QxX44nedimzJ7J4F1bIhwxb9rbqf1DeGlYX8W7CduYCy64miuq2IIjee_K5rBV6ofEPzdYQniEq6IR4I7ZO5ENlk9z-mQPs-YZE=@protonmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK 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: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:32:33 -0000 Good morning, > Good afternoon, > > That is not desirable since yourself and I cannot prove the property of t= he UTXO when it is further spent unless we can ourselves scrutinize it. What property *needs* to be proven in the first place? I suspect you are riding too much on your preferences and losing sight of t= he end goal I am pointing at here. If your goal is to promote something you prefer (which you selected for oth= er reasons) then the conclusion will be different. I already laid out the necessary goal that I consider as necessary: > The entire point of a public blockchain is to prevent uncontrolled forger= y of the coin. Given the above, it is not *necessary* to prove *any* property of *any* UTX= O other than the property *this UTXO does not create more coins than what w= as designed*. The exact value of that coin, the public key of that coin, *when* the coin = was spent and for *what* purpose are not *necessary*, the only thing necess= ary to prove is that inputs =3D outputs + fee. Indeed, the exact values of "inputs" and "outputs" and "fee" are also not n= eeded to be verifiable, only the simple fact "input =3D outputs + fee" need= s to be verifiable (which is why homomorphic encryptions of input, output, = and fee are acceptable solutions to this goal). It is immaterial if you or I *can* or *cannot* prove any *other* property, = if the goal is only to prevent uncontrolled forgery. If your definition of "fraud" is broader, then please lay it out explicitly= . As well, take note that as I understand it, this is largely the primary pro= blem of cryptocurrencies that existed long before Bitcoin did; it is helpfu= l to remember that Chaumian banks and various forms of e-cash existed befor= e Bitcoin. Regards, ZmnSCPxj