It’s an exceedingly poor example. First, value is subjective. It matters not
what other people may consider, only those who act. Given that people trade
them (ICO tokens), they have value to those people. Second, the scenario would
not function given that the value, as with money, is based on
Any meaningful covenant must be one that is reducing control by the current
owner.
I can think of countless predicates reducing control, but try to explore the
least invasive first,
and see if they unlock a new use.
Offering alternate control paths is what taproot was designed for, therefore a
My argument does not need the comparison with ICOs.
They were just an example that people pay for the utility of register even
though others think the tokens they keep track of are worthless.
Tamas Blummer
> On Jun 30, 2019, at 22:13, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>
> ICO tokens can be traded
ICO tokens can be traded (indefinitely) for other things of value, so the
comparison isn’t valid. I think we’ve both made our points clearly, so I’ll
leave it at that.
Best,
Eric
> On Jun 30, 2019, at 12:55, Tamas Blummer wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 20:54, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>>
>>
> On Jun 30, 2019, at 20:54, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>
> Could you please explain the meaning and utility of “unforgeable register” as
> it pertains to such encumbered coins?
I guess we agree that some way of keeping track of ownership is prerequisite
for something to aquire value.
We likely
