Good morning e,
> Good evening ZmnSCPxj,
>
> For the sake of simplicity, I'll use the terms lender (Landlord), borrower
> (Lessor), interest (X), principal (Y), period (N) and maturity (height after
> N).
>
> The lender in your scenario "provides use" of the principal, and is paid
> interest in
Good evening ZmnSCPxj,
For the sake of simplicity, I'll use the terms lender (Landlord), borrower
(Lessor), interest (X), principal (Y), period (N) and maturity (height after N).
The lender in your scenario "provides use" of the principal, and is paid
interest in exchange. This is of course the
Good morning e,
> It looks like you are talking about lending where the principal return is
> guaranteed by covenant at maturity. This make the net present value of the
> loan zero.
I am talking about lending where:
* Lessor pays landlord X satoshis in rent.
* Landlord provides use of the fid
It looks like you are talking about lending where the principal return is
guaranteed by covenant at maturity. This make the net present value of the loan
zero.
e
> On May 3, 2022, at 11:03, Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> Hello ZmnSCPxj,
>
> Such a system will have to be publicl
Hello ZmnSCPxj,
Such a system will have to be publicly advertised, in the same way we
see centralized cryptocurrency staking shops buying ads all over the
place. That's how they'll make retail hodlers aware that renting out
your coins in this way is possible. If JoinMarket/Teleport users notic
Thanks Darosior for your response.
I see now that APOAS (e.g. with ANYONECANPAY and/or SINGLE) and CTV (with less
restrictive templates) fall prey to the same trade-off between flexibility and
safety. So I retract my statement about that 'point in favour of OP_CTV'. It
would be nice to by-pass
Antoine,
One high level reason to not prefer APO is that it gets 'dangerously close'
to fully recursive covenants.
E.g., just by tweaking APO to use a Schnorr signature without PK
commitment, Pubkey Recovery would be possible, and fully recursive
covenants could be done.
Short of that type of mo
On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 8:49 PM Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2022, 09:22 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>> [...] Andreas is clueless about BIP 119 and other covenant
>> proposals. He is spreading misinformation and [...]
> Clueless and spreading disinformation, you sa
Hi Jacob,
I think you are a bit confused about how CTV and (tweaked) APO covenants
compare. Both would commit to the
same template, so one isn't "safer" than the other. Just more efficient in how
it commits to the template.
Replies on the specifics inline.
> While I agree with the arguments in
Good morning vjudeu,
> Typical P2PK looks like that: " OP_CHECKSIG". In a
> typical scenario, we have "" in out input and "
> OP_CHECKSIG" in our output. I wonder if it is possible to use covenants right
> here and right now, with no consensus changes, just by requiring a specific
> signature
It seems that the current consensus with Taproot is enough to implement
CoinPool. There are no needed changes if we want to form a basic version of
that protocol, so it probably should be done now (or at least started, even in
some signet or testnet3). Later, if some features like SIGHASH_ANYPRE
>
> > The path to consensus is to propose things that everyone needs.
> If there's an insight here, it isn't clear what it is to me. As stated,
> this is something I can only 100% disagree with. Its possible that
> literally nothing about bitcoin is something that "everyone needs". Its
> pretty cle
John,
> The path to consensus is to propose things that everyone needs.
If there's an insight here, it isn't clear what it is to me. As stated,
this is something I can only 100% disagree with. Its possible that
literally nothing about bitcoin is something that "everyone needs". Its
pretty clear t
Typical P2PK looks like that: " OP_CHECKSIG". In a typical
scenario, we have "" in out input and " OP_CHECKSIG" in our
output. I wonder if it is possible to use covenants right here and right now,
with no consensus changes, just by requiring a specific signature. To start
with, I am trying to
14 matches
Mail list logo
