📅 Original date posted:2020-11-23
📝 Original message:‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, 23 November 2020 00:40, AdamISZ via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Canvassing opinions/critiques from those working on bitcoin and related protocols.
>
> See the attached gist for a write-up of an outline of an idea, which is conceived for joinmarket but can apply in other scenarios where there is market for liquidity and in which privacy is a very high priority (hence 'bitcoin fungibility markets' can certainly include coinswap along with coinjoin, but possibly other things):
>
> https://gist.github.com/AdamISZ/b52704905cdd914ec9dac9fc52b621d6
Greg Maxwell pointed out to me on IRC that this idea doesn't work: there is only a receipt on the commitment to the offer (message) from the maker, not on the plaintext version, hence there is nothing stopping the maker from falsely claiming censorship after not sending the plaintext.
Reflecting on this a bit more, my intuition is that this problem is much more difficult than I had hoped; if there is a solution I suspect it involves much more sophisticated ideas. Many solutions just end up begging the question by presuming the existence of an uncensorable BB in order to create a new one; and/or use the blockchain for that function, but that is too slow and expensive, usually. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, though :)
waxwing
AdamISZ [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nv…kqw2t
2023-06-07 18:27:35
in reply to nevent1q…nmwc
Author Public Key
npub1nv7tjpn2g8tvt8qfq5ccyl00ucfcu98ch998sq4g5xp65vy6fc4sykqw2tPublished at
2023-06-07 18:27:35Event JSON
{
"id": "957bae194ee39067645dadb06c5bff8b5063e2da5468ae7b06dd06a089bc5809",
"pubkey": "9b3cb9066a41d6c59c090531827defe6138e14f8b94a7802a8a183aa309a4e2b",
"created_at": 1686162455,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"569370c1ae2c5fa3dde7906e8d657f1e04654d9476ae7fdbdbc1956bc047c28d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e47d023998cd130e43111e590fbef0729993defba39f9d99ddb7344dae6d8cfa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9b3cb9066a41d6c59c090531827defe6138e14f8b94a7802a8a183aa309a4e2b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2020-11-23\n📝 Original message:‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐\nOn Monday, 23 November 2020 00:40, AdamISZ via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Canvassing opinions/critiques from those working on bitcoin and related protocols.\n\u003e\n\u003e See the attached gist for a write-up of an outline of an idea, which is conceived for joinmarket but can apply in other scenarios where there is market for liquidity and in which privacy is a very high priority (hence 'bitcoin fungibility markets' can certainly include coinswap along with coinjoin, but possibly other things):\n\u003e\n\u003e https://gist.github.com/AdamISZ/b52704905cdd914ec9dac9fc52b621d6\n\nGreg Maxwell pointed out to me on IRC that this idea doesn't work: there is only a receipt on the commitment to the offer (message) from the maker, not on the plaintext version, hence there is nothing stopping the maker from falsely claiming censorship after not sending the plaintext.\n\nReflecting on this a bit more, my intuition is that this problem is much more difficult than I had hoped; if there is a solution I suspect it involves much more sophisticated ideas. Many solutions just end up begging the question by presuming the existence of an uncensorable BB in order to create a new one; and/or use the blockchain for that function, but that is too slow and expensive, usually. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, though :)\n\nwaxwing",
"sig": "8062ce257418a7ce63c2c74ad4843afb8353c9464c8e52a61ef895395186f4a8dd1520e52b6bf2e5b6580f48da6ffb93aef586246138f80df4840d6d7baa2161"
}