📅 Original date posted:2019-07-02
📝 Original message:Hello ZmnSCPxj,
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 12:33, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 5:30 PM, Tamas Blummer <tamas.blummer at gmail.com <mailto:tamas.blummer at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> The advertiser would thereby put the funds of the HODLer on risk of his misbehavior, which means the HODLer would have to trust the advertizing service.
>
> No it would not :)
You are right. I noticed after sending my reply and then I sent two other. I apologize for being noisy.
Let me consolidate my thinking, here.
If there is a use for UTXOs with temporary control, then those who want that use will pay for it.
A user of a service that requires temporary control UTXOs would need to cover:
1. fees required by the service
2. the opportunity cost of temporary ownership paid to the original holder who gave up control.
If the service is operated by an entity billing user then it can use UTXOs of minimal value for its operation and practically ignore opportunity interest.
This is the case with theater tickets just and other simple colored coin like use of Bitcoin. Also in case of the unchained advertizement, if the service bills its user
for its internal re-allocation of an UTXO, then why would it need to use significant value temorary control UTXOs? Actually why not use plain UTXOs, to start with?
If however the service is a common good, a network without owner and therefore not billing on behalf of someone, but wants to protect itself from spam, then it is could require temporary access to significant value UTXOs and thereby induce opportunity cost to user. Alternatively it could require burning ordinary UTXOs. Burning indirectly benefits all HODLer, temporary control benefits those who consciously gave up control. I dislike burning as it is unsustainable.
If the implementation of temporary use is enforced by consenus such that it is transitive, then temporary use could be re-rented or sold to recover opportunity cost for no longer needed temporary access, making it useable for an other service.
Temporary access UTXOs with covenants allows us to build spam limited public services that are not owned by an operator and financially benefit HODLer offering them riskless interest.
Tamas Blummer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190702/3b7b41ad/attachment-0001.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190702/3b7b41ad/attachment-0001.sig>;
Tamas Blummer [ARCHIVE] /
npub1cc…ex8m8
2023-06-07 18:19:06
in reply to nevent1q…scn3
Author Public Key
npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8Published at
2023-06-07 18:19:06Event JSON
{
"id": "42895fdf17d4212613ac4bf283a920adf059b23165e007dc8fb59ecd4a045df1",
"pubkey": "c632841665fccdabf021322b1d969539c9c1f829ceed38844fea24e8512962d7",
"created_at": 1686161946,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3c9e48adf555bcb684b7db89a8331285e9e31548be31a167a1f1d6aff4b3cbf3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"dd8690b14c2425bb1accfef1ddde8126d1a3f5046c1c2a4c143c7881736529a3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-07-02\n📝 Original message:Hello ZmnSCPxj,\n\n\u003e On Jul 2, 2019, at 12:33, ZmnSCPxj \u003cZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐\n\u003e On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 5:30 PM, Tamas Blummer \u003ctamas.blummer at gmail.com \u003cmailto:tamas.blummer at gmail.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e The advertiser would thereby put the funds of the HODLer on risk of his misbehavior, which means the HODLer would have to trust the advertizing service.\n\u003e \n\u003e No it would not :)\n\n\nYou are right. I noticed after sending my reply and then I sent two other. I apologize for being noisy.\n\nLet me consolidate my thinking, here.\n\nIf there is a use for UTXOs with temporary control, then those who want that use will pay for it.\n\nA user of a service that requires temporary control UTXOs would need to cover:\n\n1. fees required by the service\n2. the opportunity cost of temporary ownership paid to the original holder who gave up control.\n\nIf the service is operated by an entity billing user then it can use UTXOs of minimal value for its operation and practically ignore opportunity interest.\nThis is the case with theater tickets just and other simple colored coin like use of Bitcoin. Also in case of the unchained advertizement, if the service bills its user\nfor its internal re-allocation of an UTXO, then why would it need to use significant value temorary control UTXOs? Actually why not use plain UTXOs, to start with?\n\nIf however the service is a common good, a network without owner and therefore not billing on behalf of someone, but wants to protect itself from spam, then it is could require temporary access to significant value UTXOs and thereby induce opportunity cost to user. Alternatively it could require burning ordinary UTXOs. Burning indirectly benefits all HODLer, temporary control benefits those who consciously gave up control. I dislike burning as it is unsustainable.\n\nIf the implementation of temporary use is enforced by consenus such that it is transitive, then temporary use could be re-rented or sold to recover opportunity cost for no longer needed temporary access, making it useable for an other service.\n\nTemporary access UTXOs with covenants allows us to build spam limited public services that are not owned by an operator and financially benefit HODLer offering them riskless interest.\n\nTamas Blummer\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190702/3b7b41ad/attachment-0001.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 488 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190702/3b7b41ad/attachment-0001.sig\u003e",
"sig": "a79622e1e406a44198b5d4825686fbf102764ee078d061ba8a1eadfd8f3112207d349ffe0bb323b375dee04802f1af84333d442d179e76f31e5944801d155ca5"
}