[lxgr]

Ah, putting the key under shared control of (hopefully independent) entities does sound like a useful extension.

But still, while this solves the problem of availability (the shardholders could get their stake slashed if they don't publish their secrets after the failsafe condition is reached, because not publishing something on-chain is publicly observeable), does it help that much with secrecy, i.e. not leaking the secret unintentionally and possibly non-publicly?

I guess you could bet on the shardholders not having an easy way to coordinate collusion with somebody willing to pay for it, maybe by increasing the danger of defection (e.g. by allowing everyone that obtains a secret without the condition being met to claim the shardholder's stake?), but the game theory seems more complicated there.

[DennisP]

I guess you should also slash the stake if they submit the key in spite of the liveness function getting called. If the contract doesn't require the depositor to be the one to submit the key, then there's an incentive to avoid revealing the secret anywhere.

A well-funded journalist could pay the bonds plus extra. I think the only defense would be to have a large number of such contracts, many of them without journalistic value.

Distributing the key among trusted friends who don't know each other seems like the best option.

[lxgr]

Yeah, that's what I meant by allowing anyone to claim the stake upon premature/unjustified release.

That would incentivize some to pose as "collusion coordinators" ("let's all get together and see what's inside") and then just claim the stake of everybody agreeing. But if somebody could establish a reputation for not doing that and paying defectors well in an iterated game...

> Distributing the key among trusted friends who don't know each other seems like the best option.

Yeah, that also seems like the most realistic option to me. But then you don't need the blockchain :)

[DennisP]

Well the blockchain still helps with friends, just because it's a convenient and very censorship-resistant public place to post the keys without having to know each other. But there are plenty of other ways to do it.

For the friendless option, don't return all the stake if secrets are submitted despite proof of life. Instead, return a small portion to incentivize reporting, and burn the rest.

[lxgr]

Wouldn't you want the incentive for false coordinators to be as strong as possible?

Otherwise, the coordinator has more to gain by actually coordinating collusion (i.e. secretly pay off shardholders, reassemble the key, monetize what's in it, don't do anything on-chain) than by revealing the collusion in non-iterated games.

[DennisP]

Ok to sum up what I'm thinking: As a stakeholder, I pay a large deposit. I get an immediate payment, and my deposit back after a year. Proof of life happens monthly. If nobody reveals my key after proof of life goes missing, I lose my deposit. If anyone reveals my key despite proof of life in the past month, then 99% of my deposit is burned, and the revealer gets 1% of the deposit.

If I understand right, your concern with this is that the coordinator could pay off shardholders to reveal their shards directly to the coordinator, avoid revealing shards to the contract, and then the shardholders can get their money back.

However, the shardholders do have to worry that the coordinator will go ahead and reveal, collecting that 1% and burning the rest. Or it could be 10%, or 50%, whatever seems sufficiently tempting to coordinators....given the burn risk, the coordinator has to pay >100% to shardholders regardless (assuming non-iterated).

Maximum theft temptation to coordinators is 100% return, but this removes the financial loss to shardholders who simply reveal prematurely on their own. But maybe even losing 10% is sufficient to dissuade that, and then you have to trust coordinators with access to 90% of your funds.

And all this, hopefully, is in the context of the general public having no idea how much economic value the document in question has to a coordinator. In fact, if coordinators routinely pay shardholders more than their deposits, it would pay people to put up lots of worthless documents and collect the payments.