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
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
|
Return-Path: <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28DE5C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 10 May 2022 12:31:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17622416C0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 10 May 2022 12:31:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-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 CZKmrAOMeH2r
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 10 May 2022 12:31:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4322.protonmail.ch (mail-4322.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.22])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 702D540331
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 10 May 2022 12:31:09 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 12:31:00 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail2; t=1652185866;
bh=7q0P5aY3gexue2lD+R4WD50JRFStxJrJaQTovXkYxVA=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
Message-ID;
b=jHAEErm5TDVDSC6xyJUeuUqLRIvt6qLu17+uHJdjaIuLwSlBtAzDKY6ob9k5426pk
38QylAAKcgxXDd86T5LytbWKTbDJTGc9JPQ2OhoK5anrj1Kf3NrJ3JH4xmx150y5MN
5xtnG+1NZanesqsp7G0ZhYOxYMgZ+8InCrJbt83o5cEQAyXNBswkJOLQ+iIXBTVCod
8B4Xp/9oG0TFq+fYh5qp09VL8V6jc9eh2iWrC25L5XEEf+K5g3aL8ZIzFAdGCDVuUA
YuYpZkYMua9Az1mUZb2jtzjRSPEKdtZZLCKGBYLqtjQ8zA43GcrPDhh8MtbJQqgiS/
HI+3nJaDZOJ2w==
To: Chris Belcher <belcher@riseup.net>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <dI-CkifjUyQssT-JzKmv09W6NggL89orF78qz1AOFlBL7Kmxo6z5BVBEr6aZha_nbnBQHFcN1hqC5EZM7lB0U0jiBtE3ZWCiIR_dGBJMsDA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <82948428-29a3-e50a-a54a-520a83f39bba@riseup.net>
References: <22c80504-e648-e021-866e-ca5a5db3b247@riseup.net>
<bsOJ-OnnA4FutVmPqtg1xY-k0notwX4OqqIpdMsymXR9-KnS2iXGUE8o7kDVeYBMCqAX0v3oEAmiVMhUIB25gupx6l_bLff2_CNsLK_sk-U=@protonmail.com>
<82948428-29a3-e50a-a54a-520a83f39bba@riseup.net>
Feedback-ID: 11565511:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 May 2022 12:34:47 +0000
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 <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: Tue, 10 May 2022 12:31:12 -0000
------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, May 1st, 2022 at 11:01, Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello ZmnSCPxj,
>
> This is an intended feature. I'm thinking that the same fidelity bond
> can be used to running a JoinMarket maker as well as a Teleport
> (Coinswap) maker.
>
> I don't believe it's abusable. It would be a problem if the same
> fidelity bond is used by two makers in the same application, but
> JoinMarket takers are already coded to check for this, and Teleport
> takers will soon as well. Using the same bond across different
> applications is fine.
>
> Best,
> CB
>
Hi Chris, Zmn, list,
I've noodled about this a few times in the past (especially when trying to =
figure out an LSAG style ring sig based FB for privacy, but that does not s=
eem workable), and I can't decide the right perspective on it.
A user sacrifices X amount of time-value-of-money (henceforth TVOM) by comm=
itting in Joinmarket with FB1. He then uses the same FB1 in Teleport, let's=
say. If he gets benefit Y from using FB1 in Joinmarket, and benefit Z in T=
eleport, then presumably he'll only do it if (probabilistically) he thinks =
Y+Z > X.
But as an assessor of FB1 in Joinmarket, I don't know if it's also being us=
ed for Teleport, and more importantly, if it's being used somewhere else I'=
m not even aware of. Now I'm not an economist I admit, so I might not be in=
tuit-ing this situation right, but it fees to me like the right answer is "=
It's fine for a closed system, but not an open one." (i.e. if the set of po=
ssible usages is not something that all participants have fixed in advance,=
then there is an effective Sybilling problem, like I'm, as an assessor, th=
inking that sacrificed value 100 is there, whereas actually it's only 15, o=
r whatever.)
As I mentioned in https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver=
/issues/993#issuecomment-1110784059 , I did wonder about domain separation =
tags because of this, and as I vaguely alluded to there, I'm really not sur=
e about it.
If it was me I'd want to include domain separation via part of the signed m=
essage, since I don't see how it hurts? For scenarios where reuse is fine, =
reuse can still happen.
Cheers,
waxwing/AdamISZ
|
