> On Jun 28, 2019, at 12:21, Tamas Blummer wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Thank you for your questions as they show what concepts need further
> explanation, so you understand the potential of this proposal and how it is
> helpful to the ecosystem.
>
> Riskless zero bond is in fact the most basic c
Good morning Tamas,
While I think covenants for some kind of debt tool is mildly interesting and an
appropriate solution, I wonder about this particular use-case.
It seems to me that, as either the `Transfer` signers or `Exit` signers are
always involved, that the `Transfer` signers can be cons
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:27:16AM +0200, Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> The value of these outputs to Charlie is the proof that he has
> exclusive control of the coins until maturity.
>
> Alice can not issue promissory notes in excess of own capital or
> capital that she was able to borrow
Even if the difference is apparent outside the signed data (in the output).
Signing the data explicitly is more secure.
ie. if some sort of vulnerability / way to break this system for 1-of-1
multisig is found, someone who signed a single sig xpub whitelist will not
be exposed.
2019年6月29日(土) 13:4
