Good morning Eric,
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, July 6, 2019 3:27 AM, Eric Voskuil <e...@voskuil.org> wrote: > > On Jul 4, 2019, at 21:05, ZmnSCPxj zmnsc...@protonmail.com wrote: > > Good morning Eric, > > > > > As with Bitcoin mining, it is the consumed cost that matters in this > > > scenario, (i.e., not the hash rate, or in this case the encumbered coin > > > face value). Why would the advertiser not simply be required to burn .1 > > > coin for the same privilege, just as miners burn energy? Why would it not > > > make more sense to spend that coin in support of the secondary network > > > (e.g. paying for confirmation security), just as with the burning of > > > energy in Bitcoin mining? > > Good morning ZmnSCPxj, > > > Using the unspentness-time of a UTXO allows for someone advertising a > > service or producer to "close up shop" by simply spending the advertising > > UTXO. > > For instance, if the advertisement is for sale of a limited stock of goods, > > once the stock has been sold, the merchant (assuming the merchant used own > > funds) can simply recover the locked funds, with the potential to reinvest > > them elsewhere. > > This allows some time-based hedging for the merchant (they may be willing > > to wait indefinitely for the stock to be sold, but once the stock is sold, > > they can immediately reap the rewards of not having their funds locked > > anymore). > > This is a materially different concept than proposed by Tamas. > > “...he gives up his control of the coins until maturity, he can not use them > elsewhere until then.” Possibly. In a way, this is giving up control of the coin, until he no longer needs the advertisement, i.e. dynamically select the maturity age needed. > > Similarly, an entity renting out a UTXO for an advertisement might allow > > for early reclamation of the UTXO in exchange for partial refund of fee; as > > the value in the UTXO is now freed to be spent elsewhere, the lessor can > > lease it to another advertiser. > > You appear to be proposing a design whereby either the owner or the renter > (not entirely clear to me which) can spend the “locked up” coin at any time > (no maturity constraint), by dropping the covenant. > > If the renter can do this he can simply steal the coin from the owner. > > If the owner can do this there is no value to the renter (or as a proof of > cost), as the owner retains full control of the coin. > Obviously this will require a 2-of-2 multisig, with an timelocked transaction that lets the owner recover at a futuredate, so that it is the agreement of *both* that is needed to perform any actions before the timelock. I already described this in the link I provided. > If you mean that the age of the encumbrance is the proof of cost, this > requires no covenant. I don’t believe this is what you intended, just > covering all bases. Not age of encumbrance, quite. Instead, it is the simple fact that the UTXO is a UTXO (and not yet spent), that validates the advertisement. No, it does not *require* a covenant. However, covenants do make it easier to use, in the sense that the renter can repurpose the UTXO (e.g. change details of advertisement) without having to contact the owner. > > > Burnt funds cannot be "un-burnt" to easily signal the end of a term for an > > advertisement. > > And as I have shown above, nor can a “locked-up” coin be unlocked to do the > same. You have shown no such thing, merely shown that you have not understood the proposal. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
