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*. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
