1094 sats \ 1 reply \ @supertestnet 10 Mar \ on: Personalised Ads as P2P Bitcoin covenants to cultivate Trust into SN meta

First of all

--listen carefully to this--a detailed inspection report with photos stored onchain

In the name of Kronk why would you do this? Why? What benefit is there to putting the photos on the blockchain?

Secondly

Covenants could automate Long-Term Rentals

Covenants ensure that an address can only send its contents to a set of whitelisted destinations, and in this case it seems like you want the whitelist to consist of (1) the landlord or (2) the tenant, where the choice ultimately comes down to (a) their agreement or (b) a stacker news poll.

Option (a) requires a 2 of 2 multisig, and that seems to eliminate any role for covenants. Bitcoin's multisig technology already lets two parties create an address together, agree on a set of destinations, and not let the money go anywhere else, simply by not signing to send the money anywhere else. Covenants let you do this without the action of a second party, but since your scheme requires two parties anyway, I don't think covenants add anything.

Covenants also don't help you achieve (b) which is the really hard part. Bitcoin doesn't know stacker news exists and has no built in way of responding to its polls. You could perhaps achieve something kind of similar by having the 50 most active stacker news contributors put their pubkeys in a big multisig script and require 26 signers to approve any movement of funds using that script. If every loan added that script to the lease contract, you could let those 50 people vote if the landlord and the tenant have a dispute.

But (1) this idea does not require covenants anywhere (2) it's not the same as using a *real* stacker news poll (3) I don't see how covenants can enable the latter.

Lastly

Your post uses the term "trust" throughout it and talks about how to "cultivate trust" by letting Stackers vote on stuff. It ends by calling this "trustless communities [with] SN as facilitator." This is entirely self contradictory. If you're trusting Stackers to vote honestly then your scheme is the very opposite of trustless. "Trustless" means "you don't have to trust anyone." What you're describing is literally "trusting many people" and you even say so. Please don't call things trustless after spending such a long time describing, explicitly, the opposite of trustless.

196 sats \ 0 replies \ @AGORA OP 10 Mar

Firstly

In the name of Kronk, ahahah! You make my day with this! Anyway, I knew someone could fill triggered by these words, and that's why I put it in that way. Ordinals obviously are just an option, I did not say is the ideal one, not Ii think is the most sustainable. Your nostr image host solution could be much more efficient and useful. BTW I don't see why @SN should not implement it... or maybe is already there?

Secondly

You are right on this too, I probably forgot to mention the built-in multisig functionality that can definitely be used for each transaction in steps (1) and (2). My mention to covenants was explicitly to automate somehow the payments a long time, in this case on a weekly basis mentioned in step (3). What I'm assuming is that covenants interact on signed on-chain transactions and support it until the variables are filled.

Lastly

You are totally right. The "trustless" was obviously referring to the whole process of creating an Ad here on SN, and don't trust any third party to have the deal done. This excluding point (7). It wanted to be just an option and could be easily excluded from the process.

I'm not setting here the standing stones of the process, just an idea to build on and exchange opinions to make it available somehow. True is, I mixed many things together without knowing the working details of them, including the covenants.

Summarizing

Ad-post created on SN together with an open agreement as onchain transaction signed by the creator (the owner in this case).
The other parties validate information and its interest, signing the agreement
Covenant is responsible to deliver the funds as established in the agreement (on a weekly basis for the next two months)
This could be done before step (2) and at the end of the lease with ordinals or nostr-image-host or any other solution able to host images in a decentralized manned with timestamp and other relative metadata
In case of any issue, a new agreement might need to be stipulated, so this will be a new multisig process linked to the original one but not able to break it.
in the best case scenario, when everything goes well: owner receive the full amount initially agreed.
This is a fully optional step, and if both parties do not find an agreement, I assume the first agreement will continue going until competition. If there's a disagreement, both parties should initiative a new dispute (contract), but this as well will be not affecting the original one.

Many of us probably are thinking: in two years, the value of bitcoin will be changing a lot! That's your problem, because you're still thinking on fiat terms. Fiat change value too.