Message-ID: <209bbf55ec070e24ababec0612334efc1ea60741.camel@willtech.com.au>
From: DA Williamson <damian@willtech.com.au>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
 <willtech@live.com.au>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:10:38 +1100
In-Reply-To: <lQzKUb3esyrfDpI7iAVpOBcpriqEgyPI305Ck08zMrcf8MDlWCn6bwccqgeUghcri2a80b1P4ys_y-W0wubvVpvbihKVUPMJUlYw73ZOl7E=@protonmail.com>
References: <SL2P216MB0089B70AEDD58F2EBC46B4309D9A9@SL2P216MB0089.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <A326C6D2-7C6E-42A2-93C9-DC7647BB09B6@voskuil.org>
 <170b27c0-436f-c440-e3c3-f9577b764972@riseup.net>
 <SL2P216MB00896086AA80DE1A98293C469D989@SL2P216MB0089.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <Wz83obOLCjtbO-rIDw9mHM0ObBrE10y1rLg8vbEyp5BIxtfzlUJyLlnPZ-RWnvsKzJaKRe4bo7hnjlJnwL4-g7HyRNa6TvL_Y-gBQ12ifCg=@protonmail.com>
 <932f2f2866cac087a207f8757c9df4b776ccdb04.camel@willtech.com.au> ,
 <4ltFpTt8QxX44nedimzJ7J4F1bIhwxb9rbqf1DeGlYX8W7CduYCy64miuq2IIjee_K5rBV6ofEPzdYQniEq6IR4I7ZO5ENlk9z-mQPs-YZE=@protonmail.com>
 <PS2P216MB09140E189C0873B4232F54359D6A9@PS2P216MB0914.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <lQzKUb3esyrfDpI7iAVpOBcpriqEgyPI305Ck08zMrcf8MDlWCn6bwccqgeUghcri2a80b1P4ys_y-W0wubvVpvbihKVUPMJUlYw73ZOl7E=@protonmail.com>
Organization: Willtech
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 (3.34.4-1.fc31) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
Precedence: list

Good Morning,

The Bitcoin you are spending must exist in compliance with consensus
so, if the details are obscured then it is not possible for me to
accept your Bitcoin, to say I refuse. Otherwise, it is not possible for
me to see immutably that they exist all the way to coin genesis, they
could be invented in the obfuscation even in the example the received
Bitcoin are discarded as fees and new Bitcoin are invented. In that
case the transaction is not in balance but, without public scrutiny it
is not possible to see.

It is also necesdsary to see who should be able to spend the UTXO to
prevent fraud, so that scrutability allows consensus driven fungibility
to be proven. If the transaction is not available to scrutiny at least
at the level of P2SH where the spend reveals the pay to script with all
the other conditions of consensus then fungibilty does not exist.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.

 
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects
 
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
email if misdelivered.
On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 09:32 +0000, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> What property *needs* to be proven in the first place?

> Given the above, it is not *necessary* to prove *any* property of
*any* UTXO other than the property *this UTXO does not create more
coins than what was designed*.