Quote from: NotATether on Today at 04:20:09 AM

OK, I just figured out how to solve the delegation problem.

Is there something known as delegation problem or you have figured it out as well? Tongue

I appreciate your commitment but if you don't go with a bit slower and lower tempo, it becomes noisy, and eventually spammy, in the worst sense, as you wrap it behind innocent even formal technical stuff, as if there is a real problem, and you are doing your job, as a dev or something, to deal with it, which is absolutely misleading in its entirety, kinda covert spam.

Google it, "delegation problem", to find out that there is just one bitcoin related reference to such thing, and it is Faketoshi backed, nothing more than a scam advertisement!

Interestingly, still their work is more elegant than yours! They propose a same chain of delegation by signing stupid messages recursively, where it is supposed to convince users of a (centralized) entity that they have some authorization on behalf of the original signer.

No matter how anybody would solve or implement it, the sole fact that one is concerned about delegation of authority, puts her out of the bitcoin circle, why? Because, there was actually a delegation problem, i.e, delegation of control over funds; Bitcoin solved it unlike cryptography that had failed it for decades. Resurrecting it, for suggesting an imaginary cryptographic solution, is nothing other than breaking with bitcoin under its umbrella.

Quote from: NotATether on Today at 04:20:09 AM

In BIP322, there is a [planned] provision for some person to delegate signing to another person. That means the second person can do all the signing stuff that the first person could do, and the signature is as if the first person signed it.

Oh, poof! BIP322 Roll Eyes

It is crazy. How this delegation is going to be verified and approved anyway? By attaching the previous stupid txn(s) of BIP322 to the current stupid txn? Otherwise, the poor verifier from where should obtain the first one??? Remember, they are not going to the blockchain, so where are they? In Faketoshi Wright's private DB?
Pure nonsense, it is so anti-bitcoin that makes me truly sick. Sad

Quote from: NotATether on Today at 04:20:09 AM

What this could be useful for?

"Scamming people by presenting it as a bitcoin development with a covert right to double-spend", answered CSW while blinking Wink

Quote from: NotATether on Today at 04:20:09 AM

- L2/Lightning Network .... to prove liquidity on behalf of the channel, while keeping the channel itself anonymous.

Proving liquidity to whom? How?
We have nodes pared with each other in channels, each being fully aware of the balance/liquidity available, there is no way for any third party to be aware of this status unless it is running a sophisticated multi-node attack to monitor the fee circulation and other statistics. Publc channels voluntarily advertise their status through gossip protocol but it is not provable by anymeans to any body.

Quote from: NotATether on Today at 04:20:09 AM

- CoinJoin, To prove that some CoinJoin coordinator is liquid

It is also a non problem.
Modern coinjoin services do not rely on liquid providers, thanks to Schnorr blind signatures, CoinJoin is now fully trustless and private, Wasabi Wallet for instance makes it possible for users to join their txns without relying on a liquidity provider middleman.
[/quote]

Quote from: NotATether on Today at 04:20:09 AM

So how does this delegation work? It's very simple:

Sure, not to mention being useless.