1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
|
Return-Path: <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E5DC0052
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:24:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D23D8708A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:24:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id B+Ks0Jx1C9kg
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:24:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail2.protonmail.ch (mail2.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.22])
by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5631187069
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:24:22 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:24:18 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1606134260;
bh=4MJbquz+wFGYJfjkHzwc1PkV6t7hg0ZplW/KN1JCV0Q=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=mZjH4JB2CF329RyeKA2kAoGN5ZuIHELN4hw3BUH/etKvmpS+WbX66nmGOfcgIK9jG
orJZO1uUXhoYDM9CjoJvliWCAbNB6tITQyYj9/CnhcdXejrYu2D72Epe89qTEa9Az7
bVKhNQJH0YfQj/oJvJ70eSAFq0ysLcx4yYfs3h/I=
To: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <sTHQz03Yb85tmjxs3cwtzPXi8pYKR0jGYhIN0pJWV-h6FuMkevKS41kRnuXcNA9z1QN8T0KZlewLCpsExyJV7h-MlFuGJ41onn9T0QYaMBA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <S5bq_TLMgPY9S40UFwJULeLvExJ5iZBBJL36n389k87KUVWDCn4WIeG9OE99H-8R-d7WOIHutp0l9AozitRtwPPN2O98EmC6wKXPS0W1g5U=@protonmail.com>
References: <S5bq_TLMgPY9S40UFwJULeLvExJ5iZBBJL36n389k87KUVWDCn4WIeG9OE99H-8R-d7WOIHutp0l9AozitRtwPPN2O98EmC6wKXPS0W1g5U=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:59:09 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bulletin boards without selective censorability
for bitcoin fungibility markets
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:24:24 -0000
=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me=
ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
On Monday, 23 November 2020 00:40, AdamISZ via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Canvassing opinions/critiques from those working on bitcoin and related p=
rotocols.
>
> See the attached gist for a write-up of an outline of an idea, which is c=
onceived for joinmarket but can apply in other scenarios where there is mar=
ket for liquidity and in which privacy is a very high priority (hence 'bitc=
oin fungibility markets' can certainly include coinswap along with coinjoin=
, but possibly other things):
>
> https://gist.github.com/AdamISZ/b52704905cdd914ec9dac9fc52b621d6
Greg Maxwell pointed out to me on IRC that this idea doesn't work: there is=
only a receipt on the commitment to the offer (message) from the maker, no=
t on the plaintext version, hence there is nothing stopping the maker from =
falsely claiming censorship after not sending the plaintext.
Reflecting on this a bit more, my intuition is that this problem is much mo=
re difficult than I had hoped; if there is a solution I suspect it involves=
much more sophisticated ideas. Many solutions just end up begging the ques=
tion by presuming the existence of an uncensorable BB in order to create a =
new one; and/or use the blockchain for that function, but that is too slow =
and expensive, usually. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, though :)
waxwing
|
