> > > As a better analogy: I am borrowing a piece of gold, smelting it down to > > > make > > > a nice shiny advertisement "I am totally not a bot!!", then at the end of > > > the > > > lease period, re-smelting it back and returning to you the same gold piece > > > (with the exact same atoms constituting it), plus an interest from my > > > business, > > > which gained customers because of the shiny gold advertisement claiming "I > > > am totally not a bot!!". > > > > > > That you use the same piece of gold for money does not preclude me using > > > the gold for something else of economic value, like making a nice shiny > > > advertisement, so I think your analysis fails there. > > > Otherwise, your analysis is on point, but analyses something else > > > entirely.
Back to this analogy, I think it's imprecise in a way that's important to not overlook: you cannot re-use the same gold atoms in two different advertisements. Use of a fidelity bond, being basically a signature, is completely 'non-rivalrous' as I think the economists say. > Yes, that is why Tamas switched to defiads, as I had convinced him that it > would be similar enough without actually being a covenant scam like you > described. > > > In any case, I tend to agree with your other posts on the subject. For the > > burn to be provably non-dilutable it must be a cost provably associated to > > the scenario which relies upon the cost. This provides the global > > uniqueness constraint (under cryptographic assumptions of difficulty). > > > Indeed. > I suspect the only reason it is not yet a problem with existing JoinMarket > and Teleport is simply that no convenient software currently exists which > allows the same bond to be used by both, thus making it safe in practice but > not in theory. > But the theory implies that if somebody does make such software, effectively > both systems will become joined as effectively only a single identity exists > in both systems. > This may not be a problem either since the intent is that Teleport will > obsolete JoinMarket someday, but if other applications start using the same > scheme without requiring a commitment to a specific application, this may > also effectively render Teleport less useful as well. > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > _______________________________________________ So, general comment: it seems like both you and Eric agree with my uncertain intuition up-thread and therefore do we all agree that the correct solution (to whatever extent there is one) is something like domain separation tags, as we discussed earlier? It's still a matter of social consensus: if appending "JM" to the end of a certificate signature is intended to mean that this fidelity bond can only be used in Joinmarket and not anywhere else, well we can only as individual users demand that (i.e. *I* might not accept it in Teleport, but what if Fred down the street does? It's not enough for me to rely on my own criteria!), and more subtly, it makes sense only if we all have an unambiguous definition of what Joinmarket *is* - ironically it is precisely the thing brought most into question by the achievement of real decentralization in a system. Cheers, waxwing/AdamISZ _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
