Author: Chris Belcher 2022-05-13 10:02:20
Published on: 2022-05-13T10:02:20+00:00
A user sacrifices time-value-of-money by committing in Joinmarket with Fidelity Bond 1 (FB1) and then using the same FB1 in Teleport. If the user 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 is greater than the sacrificed value. However, there is a concern regarding assessing FB1 being used for other applications as well. The author of this opinion thinks that it is fine for a closed system but not an open one. However, another person does not entirely agree with this and suggests that the value of the sacrifice doesn't change even if the owner starts using it for Teleport as well as Joinmarket. In your equation Y+Z > X, using a fidelity bond for more applications increases the left-hand-side while the right-hand-side X remains the same. Regarding fidelity bonds being used for both, most fidelity bond owners are expected to use their bonds with both Joinmarket and Teleport. If an attacker locks up the required amount of BTC and actually does a successful sybil attack against Joinmarket, then they could at the same time do a successful sybil attack against teleport with little added cost. Therefore, both markets form a single fidelity bond ecosystem. Even though the hypothetical attacker can attack all systems at once, the defenders can defend all systems at once. It's worth noting that even if the certificate message is different across the two systems, a fidelity bond owner can still create two signatures over two different messages.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T20:09:41.186598+00:00