📅 Original date posted:2022-05-03
📝 Original message: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 notice
such ads appearing then we could change the taker code to remove the
intermediate certificate keypair, and have the fidelity bond UTXO key
sign the endpoint (IRC nickname or onion hostname) directly. This
removes the possibility of fidelity bonds in cold storage. It would have
to be done for privacy, and it wouldn't be too bad. Right now there's no
cold storage solution for fidelity bonds yet JoinMarket has about 600
bitcoins locked up and advertised, which must be all on hot wallets.
Best,
CB
On 03/05/2022 06:26, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning Chris,
>
>> Hello ZmnSCPxj,
>>
>> Renting out fidelity bonds is an interesting idea. It might happen in
>> the situation where a hodler wants to generate yield but doesn't want
>> the hassle of running a full node and yield generator. A big downside of
>> it is that the yield generator income is random while the rent paid is a
>> fixed cost, so there's a chance that the income won't cover the rent.
>
> The fact that *renting* is at all possible suggests to me that the following situation *could* arise:
>
> * A market of lessors arises.
> * A surveillor creates multiple identities.
> * Each fake identity rents separately from multiple lessors.
> * Surveillor gets privacy data by paying out rent money to the lessor market.
>
> In defiads, I and Tamas pretty much concluded that rental would happen inevitably.
> One could say that defiads was a kind of fidelity bond system.
> Our solution for defiads was to prioritize propagating advertisements (roughly equivalent to the certificates in your system, I think) with larger bonded values * min(bonded_time, 1 year).
> However, do note that we did not intend defiads to be used for privacy-sensitive applications like JoinMarket/Teleport.
>
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
Chris Belcher [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ek…lnm2u
2023-06-07 23:08:46
in reply to nevent1q…cpv0
Author Public Key
npub1ekvnqhww3aagwuj9t55dgj5y29u8cxdjllfv3vgppt8vc0zljhrs6lnm2uPublished at
2023-06-07 23:08:46Event JSON
{
"id": "850673c2a9b579f0ba4a530ab86ea2a49bc03db1b5ba5e09070682c08b8b5d73",
"pubkey": "cd99305dce8f7a8772455d28d44a8451787c19b2ffd2c8b1010acecc3c5f95c7",
"created_at": 1686179326,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed87b4a661b1ec563ef35bba3e76c69fedd4dee29f9239e792212ae30f6447d4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4f7b82a2d3d77a7d90aa6b2678529076bb9dbbdf80d3bc6287f9b5f76ffb9975",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-05-03\n📝 Original message:Hello ZmnSCPxj,\n\nSuch a system will have to be publicly advertised, in the same way we \nsee centralized cryptocurrency staking shops buying ads all over the \nplace. That's how they'll make retail hodlers aware that renting out \nyour coins in this way is possible. If JoinMarket/Teleport users notice \nsuch ads appearing then we could change the taker code to remove the \nintermediate certificate keypair, and have the fidelity bond UTXO key \nsign the endpoint (IRC nickname or onion hostname) directly. This \nremoves the possibility of fidelity bonds in cold storage. It would have \nto be done for privacy, and it wouldn't be too bad. Right now there's no \ncold storage solution for fidelity bonds yet JoinMarket has about 600 \nbitcoins locked up and advertised, which must be all on hot wallets.\n\nBest,\nCB\n\nOn 03/05/2022 06:26, ZmnSCPxj wrote:\n\u003e Good morning Chris,\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Hello ZmnSCPxj,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Renting out fidelity bonds is an interesting idea. It might happen in\n\u003e\u003e the situation where a hodler wants to generate yield but doesn't want\n\u003e\u003e the hassle of running a full node and yield generator. A big downside of\n\u003e\u003e it is that the yield generator income is random while the rent paid is a\n\u003e\u003e fixed cost, so there's a chance that the income won't cover the rent.\n\u003e \n\u003e The fact that *renting* is at all possible suggests to me that the following situation *could* arise:\n\u003e \n\u003e * A market of lessors arises.\n\u003e * A surveillor creates multiple identities.\n\u003e * Each fake identity rents separately from multiple lessors.\n\u003e * Surveillor gets privacy data by paying out rent money to the lessor market.\n\u003e \n\u003e In defiads, I and Tamas pretty much concluded that rental would happen inevitably.\n\u003e One could say that defiads was a kind of fidelity bond system.\n\u003e Our solution for defiads was to prioritize propagating advertisements (roughly equivalent to the certificates in your system, I think) with larger bonded values * min(bonded_time, 1 year).\n\u003e However, do note that we did not intend defiads to be used for privacy-sensitive applications like JoinMarket/Teleport.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Regards,\n\u003e ZmnSCPxj",
"sig": "6c30c9dd41d79d709e312f878f254616acf67be9f013f1cd3f44970e9ae5c8ac1cc00e4f65a611c4614ed4faae32720acc28c6d0987b7b2e653aa3b7af2dac6e"
}