📅 Original date posted:2022-05-10
📝 Original message:------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, May 1st, 2022 at 11:01, Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello ZmnSCPxj,
>
> This is an intended feature. I'm thinking that the same fidelity bond
> can be used to running a JoinMarket maker as well as a Teleport
> (Coinswap) maker.
>
> I don't believe it's abusable. It would be a problem if the same
> fidelity bond is used by two makers in the same application, but
> JoinMarket takers are already coded to check for this, and Teleport
> takers will soon as well. Using the same bond across different
> applications is fine.
>
> Best,
> CB
>
Hi Chris, Zmn, list,
I've noodled about this a few times in the past (especially when trying to figure out an LSAG style ring sig based FB for privacy, but that does not seem workable), and I can't decide the right perspective on it.
A user sacrifices X amount of time-value-of-money (henceforth TVOM) by committing in Joinmarket with FB1. He then uses the same FB1 in Teleport, let's say. If he gets benefit Y from using FB1 in Joinmarket, and benefit Z in Teleport, then presumably he'll only do it if (probabilistically) he thinks Y+Z > X.
But as an assessor of FB1 in Joinmarket, I don't know if it's also being used for Teleport, and more importantly, if it's being used somewhere else I'm not even aware of. Now I'm not an economist I admit, so I might not be intuit-ing this situation right, but it fees to me like the right answer is "It's fine for a closed system, but not an open one." (i.e. if the set of possible usages is not something that all participants have fixed in advance, then there is an effective Sybilling problem, like I'm, as an assessor, thinking that sacrificed value 100 is there, whereas actually it's only 15, or whatever.)
As I mentioned in https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver/issues/993#issuecomment-1110784059 , I did wonder about domain separation tags because of this, and as I vaguely alluded to there, I'm really not sure about it.
If it was me I'd want to include domain separation via part of the signed message, since I don't see how it hurts? For scenarios where reuse is fine, reuse can still happen.
Cheers,
waxwing/AdamISZ
AdamISZ [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nv…kqw2t
2023-06-07 23:08:49
in reply to nevent1q…ve5a
Author Public Key
npub1nv7tjpn2g8tvt8qfq5ccyl00ucfcu98ch998sq4g5xp65vy6fc4sykqw2tPublished at
2023-06-07 23:08:49Event JSON
{
"id": "ccb78c23f65e354beca05ca61440a1e83950aed5a95e6bd77146bc254322cc71",
"pubkey": "9b3cb9066a41d6c59c090531827defe6138e14f8b94a7802a8a183aa309a4e2b",
"created_at": 1686179329,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed87b4a661b1ec563ef35bba3e76c69fedd4dee29f9239e792212ae30f6447d4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4636eb02b930c1ebfb74a153d9737b66746ee4d8373e84a9a99f417d6d870760",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9b3cb9066a41d6c59c090531827defe6138e14f8b94a7802a8a183aa309a4e2b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-05-10\n📝 Original message:------- Original Message -------\nOn Sunday, May 1st, 2022 at 11:01, Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\n\u003e Hello ZmnSCPxj,\n\u003e\n\u003e This is an intended feature. I'm thinking that the same fidelity bond\n\u003e can be used to running a JoinMarket maker as well as a Teleport\n\u003e (Coinswap) maker.\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't believe it's abusable. It would be a problem if the same\n\u003e fidelity bond is used by two makers in the same application, but\n\u003e JoinMarket takers are already coded to check for this, and Teleport\n\u003e takers will soon as well. Using the same bond across different\n\u003e applications is fine.\n\u003e\n\u003e Best,\n\u003e CB\n\u003e\n\nHi Chris, Zmn, list,\nI've noodled about this a few times in the past (especially when trying to figure out an LSAG style ring sig based FB for privacy, but that does not seem workable), and I can't decide the right perspective on it.\n\nA user sacrifices X amount of time-value-of-money (henceforth TVOM) by committing in Joinmarket with FB1. He then uses the same FB1 in Teleport, let's say. If he gets benefit Y from using FB1 in Joinmarket, and benefit Z in Teleport, then presumably he'll only do it if (probabilistically) he thinks Y+Z \u003e X.\n\nBut as an assessor of FB1 in Joinmarket, I don't know if it's also being used for Teleport, and more importantly, if it's being used somewhere else I'm not even aware of. Now I'm not an economist I admit, so I might not be intuit-ing this situation right, but it fees to me like the right answer is \"It's fine for a closed system, but not an open one.\" (i.e. if the set of possible usages is not something that all participants have fixed in advance, then there is an effective Sybilling problem, like I'm, as an assessor, thinking that sacrificed value 100 is there, whereas actually it's only 15, or whatever.)\n\nAs I mentioned in https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver/issues/993#issuecomment-1110784059 , I did wonder about domain separation tags because of this, and as I vaguely alluded to there, I'm really not sure about it.\n\nIf it was me I'd want to include domain separation via part of the signed message, since I don't see how it hurts? For scenarios where reuse is fine, reuse can still happen.\n\nCheers,\nwaxwing/AdamISZ",
"sig": "a2694b2df6ca1466892f4044f2f393cb05a481380544a285e6206f32ebee469d29ae1be79a2f00c82a67a40bd9e3ac52898f4158bbb0700a647495571b84f5d4"
}